Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL ( By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 17 January.

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 December at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Refugees

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees are currently seeking permanent settlement in the United Kingdom; what are the broad and main reasons behind their application for settlement; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): On 30 September there were some 27,800 outstanding applications for asylum, most of which had been made in the previous 12 months. People claim asylum for a range of reasons, including a well-founded fear of persecution, economic factors, or as a means of circumventing normal immigration controls. In recent years fewer than a third of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom have been recognised as having a well-founded fear of persecution. In view of the rising number of asylum applications the Government are urgently reviewing the arrangements for dealing with asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Greenway: Although I have every sympathy with refugees and asylum seekers who are in genuine difficulties, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take note of my concern and that of my constituents at the very large number of asylum seekers coming into the constituency, necessarily taking over much-needed housing that could be used for the homeless and others and placing an enormous strain on the area's resources? Two people came to se me separately last week and said, "We have applied for asylum for ourselves. Could we also apply for asylum for 10 dependants?' That sort of thing can build up to huge numbers. What can be done?

Mr. Baker: I am fully aware of the problem. About 10 years ago there were about 2,000 applications a year for refugee status. In the mid-1980s the figure rose to about 5,000 a year and stayed at that level for some time. In 1989 applications increased threefold to 16,000, and are currently running at over 25,000. As my hon. Friend says, after people have been received here they make applications for their dependants, the number of whom could be considerable. The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom. There is an increase in the number of refugees all over Europe, and all countries and Ministers with responsibilities such as mine are very concerned about it. We must ensure that something is done.

Mr. Cartwright: Will the Home Secretary reflect on the real hardship that is caused to applicants for refugee status by extremely lengthy delays in processing their applications? People from Somalia, for example, have had to leave families behind in refugee camps in Ethiopia and for such people delays of more than a year are hard to bear. Can he give any hope that the process will be speeded up?

Mr. Baker: Because of the rapid and sudden increase in the number of applications, it is currently taking an average of 17 months to vet and examine applications for refugee status. I discovered only last week that in several countries in Europe it takes much longer. We are doing what we can and the matter will be examined by the review that I have set up.

Woolf Report

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates receiving the Woolf inquiry report.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): This is a matter for Lord Justice Woolf, but I understand that he hopes to report early in the new year.

Mr. Sheerman: If the Woolf report appears after we finish Committee proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill it will be nothing short of a scandal, because everyone expects extremely sensible recommendations from Woolf which will affect, in particular, remand prisoners. Would not it be better to wait for Woolf rather than to carry through the dogma of the privatisation of the remand sector?

Mrs. Rumbold: The report from Lord Justice Woolf will certainly be published before the end of proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will carefully consider the recommendations.

Mr. Alexander: Although the immediate reaction to an incident such as that at Strangeways is to call for a full and wide-ranging report on prison conditions and inmate problems, would not it be equally helpful to have a much shorter factual report about what happened before the whole incident at Strangeways goes cold?

Mrs. Rumbold: I assure my hon. Friend that the immediate circumstances surrounding the events of April in Strangeways have caused the prison service to look carefully at future plans for accommodation, the type of accommodation and the behaviour and management of prisons and regimes. The report will obviously make a


number of recommendations, but the prison service has taken note of what needs to be done to improve prison regimes and security without waiting for that report.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Woolf inquiry deal with the problem of remand prisoners being held in police cells in Greater Manchester since the Strangeways incident? In particular, will the numbers being held in police cells now be dramatically reduced and who will pay the cost of their detention there? There is much concern in Greater Manchester that poll tax payers will have to foot the bill for all the overtime that is being worked by police officers looking after remand prisoners in police cells.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that K wing at Strangeways is now open and prisoners are being returned from police cells in Greater Manchester. It is hoped that up to 150 prisoners will be sent to Strangeways from police cells by Christmas. The Home Office has already paid £8 million to the police for their services and any further expenditure incurred by the police for looking after prisoners will be repaid.

Crime

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new plans he has to reduce the incidence of crime in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): We shall continue to pursue our policies to combat crime and protect the public. In England and Wales, additional people and money will be available to the police next year. The provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill will enhance the courts' powers to deal effectively with offenders. We have a growing and substantial programme of crime prevention measures, but effective action against crime needs the wholehearted support of everyone, as much in England and Wales as in Scotland.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister recognise that there is concern about the extent to which juvenile crime is increasing? Will he acknowledge that nearly half all recordable offences are committed by persons under the age of 21 and that the peak offending ages are between 15 and 18? Has the Home Office considered looking at the non-judicial tribunal system and the children's hearing system in Scotland, which is child centred and family based and provides a way of breaking into the cycle of recidivism which seems to bedevil criminal statistics?

Mr. Patten: For these purposes, Scotland is a different country with a different criminal code. We are always prepared to listen to what goes on in different countries and learn from it. I have looked at the possibility of introducing children's panels here, but there are successful alternatives, such as the use of cautioning. About 90 per cent. of those aged between 10 and 13 coming into the hands of the police are cautioned rather than proceeding to a court hearing of any sort. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that about half the crimes in England and Wales are committed by those under 21 and that the peak age for offending is in the mid-teens, but over the past 10 years juvenile crime in Britain has been decreasing and that continues to be the case. I hope that that means that we are

laying the foundation for lower overall crime figures in the 1990s, as most people who offend as juveniles offend again as adults.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of countering international crime, particularly drug trafficking, is greater sharing of information and co-operation among member countries in the EC? What news is there from the Trevi group of Ministers in relation to greater collaboration among our police forces?

Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was in Rome at the Trevi meeting last Thursday and Friday. I do not want to slip too much into Foreign Office communiqué language, but there were useful and fruitful discussions. Let me raise the veil to some extent by saying that one possibility is that we may have a Europeanwide drug intelligence unit to share information among all western European countries and, I hope increasingly, the countries of central Europe and the USSR.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister introduce legislation to establish a register of authorised manufac-turers and holders of skeleton keys? Is he aware that one of my constituents received correspondence saying that keys that suit different types of lock and which will open the majority of British and foreign cars are available somewhere within the United Kingdom? Is not it clear that many who buy those keys will commit criminal offences? Can a national register now be set up as a matter of urgency, or is this just part of the enterprise economy?

Mr. Patten: That was a silly ending to what was a rather good and important question.

Mr. Canavan: It is a key question.

Mr. Patten: If that counts as a joke in Scotland, I am glad that I penetrate only as far as the lowlands on my travels there.
The sort of equipment advertised in the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not make it any easier to break into cars than any other material, such as pieces of metal, bent coathangers, and so on. Anyone who goes equipped for crime in possession of such an item—whether it purports to be a skeleton key or anything else that can be used for breaking and entering—can be charged and convicted.

BBC Licence Fee

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in the study being undertaken by independent consultants appointed by his Department into the ways in which the BBC spends its licence fee income.

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had recently with the director general of the BBC concerning the licence fee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We had discussions with the chairman and director general of the BBC before we asked Price Waterhouse to advise how licence fee


increases could be held below the retail prices index. Its report is now being completed and my right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decision in January.

Mr. Field: Are not vehicle excise duty and the television licence fee the last remaining bureaucratic and inefficient forms of taxation? Is not it time for the BBC to be set free and allowed to generate its own revenue—perhaps matched by the Government pound for pound, as they have done with their very successful programme of supporting the arts? Would not that create independence and improve efficiency?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the licence fee system is inefficient. It raises 97 per cent. of the BBC's revenue and will remain its major source of income at least until the corporation's charter is renewed in 1996. The BBC is experimenting with subscription television, but its first essay was not successful owing to the failure of the decoding equipment. Nevertheless, the BBC is pursuing a dozen or more ideas that it hopes to introduce at the end of 1991. If my hon. Friend has any specific ideas that could be effective in raising additional revenue for the BBC, I hope that he will inject them into the discussions on the renewal of the corporation's charter. As they will begin in a couple of years' time, that leaves my hon. Friend with plenty of time to give thought to the matter.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister accept that the licence fee represents excellent value for money and, so far as Labour is concerned, is far superior to the alternative of subscription fees, which would undoubtedly be much more expensive for the average viewer? Our only qualification is that pensioners, particularly those on very low incomes, should be exempt from paying the licence fee. That would make it far less of a controversial issue. Any alternative system not offering exemption, such as subscriptions, would certainly be more expensive for pensioners.

Mr. Lloyd: One cannot reach a definite conclusion on different forms of financing the BBC until they have all been thoroughly examined. I agree that the BBC licence fee offers extremely good value for money. As the hon. Gentleman knows, concessionary licences are available to pensioners in local authority warden-controlled homes. The hon. Gentleman should talk to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen who specifically said that there should not be concessionary licences for all pensioners, because many of them have greater incomes than the non-pensioners who would have to pay extra for their licences to cover the cost of the pensioners' concession.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people deeply resent paying such a large licence fee and that they will resent even more any increase, particularly as there is an easy way of increasing the BBC's revenue—by allowing advertising on Radios 1 and 2?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not simply a matter of allowing advertising, because the BBC's charter forbids that. We cannot change the existing charter, or consider renewing it in its present form, until it has expired.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that, contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), a large body of people values the oasis of broadcasting that is free from advertising and commercial pressures? Will he give us an assurance that the

Government have no intention of introducing advertising into the BBC and thereby reducing it to the same level as every other "income sourced" broadcasting concern?

Mr. Lloyd: As I said, the Government have no such intention. All the possible ways of raising revenue for the BBC, including maintaining the licence fee, will undoubtedly be considered when the charter comes up for renewal. I agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman's implication that many people consider the licence fee good value for money—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Moreover, research studies have shown that at least a good proportion of people say that they would be prepared to pay more.

Soccer Violence and Hooliganism

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to introduce new legislation to combat soccer violence and hooliganism.

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in respect of his recently announced legislative proposals to create new offences designed to help control hooliganism at football gounds.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We propose to create offences along the lines recommended by Lord Justice Taylor in his final report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend recall the violence and destruction that took place in my constituency over the last May bank holiday weekend on the occasion of the Leeds United-Bournemouth football match, despite repeated requests from the police for the match to be rescheduled? Will he include in the proposed legislation a police power to veto the holding of such potentially dangerous matches, which was called for at the time by the chief constable of Dorset?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly remember that match. It so concerned the former Home Secretary, my noble and learned Friend Lord Waddington—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—of very blessed memory—that he called in representatives of the Football Association and the league. Those representatives agreed that they would never hold a match when a chief officer of police had asked them not to do so on a particular date or in a particular place. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although his proposals may be acceptable to the Government, the Taylor report was complete nonsense from start to finish and precipitated the demise of small clubs? Would not it be better if these hooligans were taken away and flogged, so that they would not go on inflicting damage on people's property week in, week out?

Mr. Lloyd: Like many other people, my hon. Friend is deeply concerned about hooliganism at football matches and has done much more than most to deal with. However, I do not think that even he would consider, on reflection, that the Taylor report was complete and utter nonsense and I doubt whether he would want the Government to refrain from adding the offences mentioned in Taylor's recommendations to the list of those for which hooligans can be prosecuted.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Minister aware that the West Yorkshire police force will find it very difficult to control soccer violence, because it is unable to maintain itself at the strength that the Home Office recognises is necessary for an efficient service? Owing to the poll tax rules, by March 1992 there will be 500 fewer police officers on the beat in West Yorkshire.

Mr. Lloyd: If the county council is unable to organise its finances to provide the police coverage that it should provide, that is a matter for the council itself. The grant from central Government for police expenditure is 51 per cent. and that local authority receives the same assistance as any other. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the number of arrests has fallen somewhat over the past year or so, although attendances have risen.

Mr. Randall: Will the Minister admit that the Government have failed the sport of football through a series of errors made in pursuing, through the Football Spectators Act 1989, the mad idea of turnstile cards for fans and in not waiting for the Taylor report to be published before proceeding with legislation, as was positively proposed by the Labour party? Does the Minister accept that the consequences of the errors and U-turns have caused a serious delay in getting much-needed legislation aimed at combating hooliganism on the statute book?

Mr. Lloyd: The Government would have been worthy of blame had they not created the legislative framework to make possible decisions such as the membership scheme. Only part of the Act is rendered unnecessary by later agreements. Other aspects of the Act are on the statute book and are of great use. If the hon. Gentleman will reflect on it, I hope that he will agree.

Mr. Butcher: I hope that my hon. Friend will look further into the causes of hooliganism and the best way of dealing with it. Will he instruct his officials to call upon Mr. George Curtis of Coventry City football club who has a great deal of expertise in this matter? Is my hon. Friend aware that Coventry's policy of treating fans with respect and consideration inside the ground while being strict, fair and immediate in law enforcement outside the ground has worked well?

Mr. Lloyd: It is true that the last people thought of by some clubs are their fans. If they were given much greater attention, as is increasingly the case with most clubs, it is likely that the problems would decrease.

Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Minister's wholly unsatisfactory reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Chief Constable John Newing

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will obtain for the library of his Department a copy of the speech delivered at the London conference on crime and policing on 28 November by Chief Constable John Newing of Derbyshire.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Copies of Mr. Newing's speech have been obtained and placed in the Home Office library. The Government are continuing to support police efforts

to ensure public confidence through the delivery of an efficient and effective service. I fully endorse the work of all police officers to improve the quality of service and increase the confidence of the public in the police.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary share the concern expressed by Chief Constable Newing that there is a crisis of confidence and morale in the police force at all ranks and, in particular, that there is discrimination against women and black serving officers? Does he accept the recommendation—or will he consider it—that after 30 years the time is ripe for a new royal commission on the police?

Mr. Baker: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and I do not accept the argument that there is a fundamental lack of confidence in the police. I appreciate the fact that some recent events—I do not wish to underestimate them if they involve a miscarriage of justice —have attracted a great deal of attention, but it is important to remember that a small number of officers was involved in those cases and it would be wrong to condemn the entire police service on account of that. Over 125,000 uniformed police officers work day in and day out on the streets of our cities dealing with law and order and they deserve our support.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Derbyshire policemen are as able and dedicated as any police officers in the country and that the low performance of the Derbyshire police is an appalling reflection on the political control exercised upon them by Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council? It is a warning of what would happen were Labour to win the next election.

Mr. Baker: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The chief inspector of police has issued a report on the state of Derbyshire constabulary. It is one of the most worrying reports that has ever been issued. It is not a reflection on the chief constable or the police officers in Derbyshire, but a condemnation of Derbyshire county council and Derbyshire police authority which, for the past eight years, have starved the police of resources. The last major capital building programme of a police station in Derbyshire ended in 1981. There has been no increase in police numbers in Derbyshire since 1987, which shows Labour's priorities when it is in office.

Mr. Janner: Does not the speech of the chief constable of Derbyshire show that police resources and morale throughout the east midlands are crumbling? Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of a series of serious murder inquiries and other stresses on resources, Leicestershire police has a deficit of £1·5 million and last week announced cuts in staff, in policing and in the protection that citizens are entitled to expect? Will he be kind enough to look into the problem of the Leicestershire police deficit and provide us with some help?

Mr. Baker: Since we have been in office, there has been an increase in police strength of more than 26,000 men and women and next year there will be a further 700. Derbyshire was offered an increase in police officers last year but it turned it down, preferring to spend the money on other priorities.

Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by failing to provide the necessary support, Derbyshire county council is failing in its duty under section 4 of the


Police Act 1964? What action will he take as Home Secretary to make sure that it abides by that Act to ensure adequate policing for the people of Derbyshire?

Mr. Baker: I am, of course, concerned about that point and have asked the chief inspector to take particular interest in what is happening in Derbyshire. His report showed, for example, that its fingerprint bureau was on the brink of collapse, that its casualty bureau could not withstand any realistic pressure and that many of its police stations were in a disgraceful condition. I ask the Labour party to appreciate that that is what happens when a Labour authority has been in power and places policing right at the bottom of its list for eight years.

Mr. Hattersley: The speech to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred in his question did not concern, as the Home Secretary chose to interpret it, a collapse of confidence in the police, but the collapse in police morale throughout the United Kingdom. When the Home Secretary begins to talk to policemen, he will discover that that collapse in morale is widespread and desperately dangerous. Knowing as he must, or as he soon will, that one of the main causes of the collapse in police morale is the Government's refusal to implement Edmund-Davies as far as it applied to the police housing allowance, is he prepared to look at that again?

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the collapse of police morale, but he should note that the chief constable said that the collapse of morale in Derbyshire was because of the fact that Derbyshire county council has put the police at the bottom of its list for eight years. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of his commitment to law and order and the way in which the Labour party is concerned about law and order, I shall say to him, "Derbyshire", which shows what Labour is like in office.

Weapons

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee to discuss the European Commission's draft directive on the control of acquisition and possession of weapons.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My noble Friend Lord Kimball has written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with the views of the committee on the draft directive. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that under the draft directive the rights of British shooters, as covered by British domestic law, will not be inhibited in any way? Will he clarify the position on the possession and use of automatic shotguns by British domestic residents and by visitors from overseas and the European Community?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend asked a lot of questions, but I think that I can respond by answering the first part. The directive will leave domestic law as the ruling law on firearms in this country as in other European countries. The weapons that are now allowed will continue to be allowed. The directive will deal only with the rules governing the legitimate movement of weapons between countries, with the law of the recipient country determining what is allowed.

Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister agree that it is not necessary to see police walking around Heathrow with large machine guns? It frightens passengers and tourists and it frightens the hell out of me.

Mr. Lloyd: The directive has nothing to do with that point. I think that most people would require that the police use the means at their disposal to ensure maximum security. That factor would determine the reactions of most people.

Citizenship

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to process applications for British citizenship.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The average time now being taken to complete applications is 23 months for registrations and 34 months for naturalisations.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which is somewhat disappointing. Several constituents in my area, particularly those from Poland, were recently told that there would be an 18-month delay in processing their applications. What more can be done and what is being done to speed up the processing of the backlog of applications?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation is unsatisfactory. The reason is the enormous influx of applications at the deadline at the end of 1987, to meet the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981. The huge influx reached its peak in December 1987 and we have reached the final applications. It is possible that the waiting time will increase a little over the next few weeks. I believe that it will then decrease rapidly because of the steps that we have taken to provide extra staff in the next financial year, to streamline procedures and so on.

Mr. Tony Banks: I put it to the Minister that this is a disgracefully long time in which to consider applications. It is made that much worse because the applicants have submitted their cheques, which the Government have banked and on which, no doubt, they are getting a good interest rate, given the present level. Will the Minister be prepared to look at a delayed payment system, whereby people can at least hang on to the money and pay it when the Government are ready to process their applications?

Mr. Lloyd: The section is running at a loss this year. If we were to make an adjustment according to costs, the charge would have to go up. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it is a long delay. As he knows, if a Member writes to us about a constituent who is being grossly inconvenienced by the delay, we shall give that application a measure of priority.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that his first reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) was most unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that many of us have found that the lengthy delays in processing such applications cause a great deal of misery and heartache? They are totally unnecessary in a well-organised department. Will he do something about them?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept the implications of my right hon. Friend's remarks. He knows that the huge influx was


caused by people all putting in their applications at the same time, when many had had opportunities to do so since 1973. We have to choose the way in which we direct priorities in the Home Office. If my right hon. Friend looked objectively at the situation, I do not think that he would agree that it would be right, for instance, to take away resources from processing applications by refugees, when their future depends upon it, in order to give passports to people who are already properly settled here.

Magistrates Courts

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the operation of the magistrates courts dealing with poll tax cases; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Patten: We are keeping the operation of the statutory arrangements under review and we have asked all justices' clerks in England and Wales to provide information about the community charge enforcement work load. Most cases are going very well.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister realise that hundreds of thousands of people have been dealt with far worse than criminals in the magistrates courts in recent weeks? In Warrington and in Lymington, people have been dragooned through, eight or 10 at a time. In Hitchin and in Stevenage, the courts have been closed to the public. In a number of magistrates courts from Coventry down to Bournemouth, people have been denied the right of representation. In Grantham last Friday, a man was put into prison, but, unlike a criminal who gets 50 per cent. remission of his sentence and although his only crime was that he was poor and could not afford to pay the poll tax, he will get no remission on his sentence. Will the Minister review the procedures and stop treating poor debtors as if they were criminals?

Mr. Patten: Certainly not. People should pay the bills due to their local authorities. If they do not, they should face the consequences.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House at what level the number of summonses for community charge defaulters is running at the moment in comparison with the number of defaulters whom one would have expected to be summonsed at this time of year under the old rating system?

Mr. Patten: It is not much different. The only difference is that the courts are operating a new procedure and a new set of processes. They have not been aided by hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and some of his hon. Friends, who have tried to incite people to disrupt proceedings in the magistrates courts to the maximum of their ability.

Burglaries

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries of homes and commercial premises have taken place in the past 12 months.

Mr. John Patten: In the 12 months to June 1990, 477,000 residential burglaries and 427,000 commercial burglaries were recorded by the police in England and Wales.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister agree that those figures reveal that the number of burglaries and break-ins has now reached epidemic proportions? Does he further agree that in the urban areas where it is almost impossible to get insurance because of repeated instances of break-ins, it would be worth while for the Department to speak to the insurance companies to try to persuade them to take a rather more helpful view about providing insurance? Does he agree that there is a need to provide burglar alarms for those who cannot afford to have their homes properly fitted with alarms in areas where there is a high incidence of burglary?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that the British insurance industry could do far more, by the use of premium payments and other methods, to encourage people to protect their own property, which would ensure that people in high crime areas would not have difficulties in obtaining insurance. However, all of us can learn a bit from Merseyside. While burglaries have been going up in England and Wales, as I have already said, in Merseyside, thanks to the activities of 5,000 neighbourhood watch or home watch schemes and to the Merseyside police, the number of burglaries dropped by about 13 per cent. in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

Trevi Group

Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the meetings of Ministers and of the respective working groups scheduled for the Trevi group for the remainder of 1990.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I attended the Trevi meeting in Rome on 7 December. The cycle of working group meetings will begin again in January under the Luxembourg presidency.

Mr. Archer: That makes it easier. Will the right hon. Gentleman bring us up to date on the talks arising from the proposal for a common information system? Who will qualify for the doubtful privilege of inclusion? What personal information will be recorded and who will have access to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to keep the House informed?

Mr. Baker: Ministers agreed in Rome to commission a detailed feasibility study on a Community-wide com-puterised information service to help combat serious crime. We shall play an active part in that with a view to ensuring that any system works effectively and contains suitable safeguards on personal information. I quite understand the significance and importance of that, and I shall keep the House fully informed.

Sentencing Council

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce a sentencing council; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Patten: The Government's plans are set out in the Criminal Justice Bill, which will provide a coherent framework for consistency in sentencing. Those proposals build on the valuable work of the Court of Appeal and, most importantly, respect the independence of the judiciary.

Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the plans announced by the Labour party for a sentencing council and for some form of court inspectorate cut across the constitutional pillars of our democracy, in which the Executive and judiciary carry out separate functions, and the judiciary protects the man in the street?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend must be referring to the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in which he regurgitated the ideas of the 1960s and 1970s, suggesting that courts are not there for punishment and introducing the most violent attack on the independence of the judiciary. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition are producing the ideas of terminally tired Labourism. They are a pair of politically beached whales.

Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole House and the country have been shocked by the suicide of 15-year-old Philip Knight, who was locked up for 23 hours a day in an adult prison, Swansea, where his suicidal tendencies and misery were clearly not identified? Does he further agree that we need a review of remand policies to make it clear that young people should not be put in adult prisons?

Mr. Patten: I thought that I was leaving on rather a good exit line, but I am pleased to have been brought back by the hon. Lady to answer that extremely important question. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department issued new guidance to the prison service. Either before Christmas or shortly after, I hope to be able to make further announcements about the better provision of remand for boys aged 15 and 16.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. After my duties in the House, I shall be leaving for the European Council in Rome.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Prime Minister find time to give another impetus to his ideal of a classless society, in which public power is not abused, by responding to the growing movement for constitutional reform? In the spirit of the times, will he institute cross-party talks on a Bill of Rights, decentralised government and a fair voting system?

The Prime Minister: As I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman and as he will know from what I have said in recent weeks, my vision of a classless society deals with increased opportunity and choice. I have no immediate proposals for constitutional change.

Mr. Luce: As protectionism would do much to undermine the economies of the world and to increase unemployment, will my right hon. Friend take a positive lead this weekend in the European summit to persuade the

Community to adopt a less protectionist stance with regard to agriculture, with a view to unblocking the GATT negotiations?

The Prime Minister: I shall be arguing for a positive statement from the European Council, which will make absolutely clear the Community's determination to make a success of the GATT negotiations. They are extremely important and the cost if they fail, to us and to many other countries, is very great.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that the large rises in unemployment are a direct and deliberate result of his policies?

The Prime Minister: Everyone regrets the rise in unemployment, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have been warning for some months that if wage rises stay high, they will have a necessary effect on jobs.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not it strike the right hon. Gentleman as somewhat dishonest that, whenever unemployment goes down, it is evidence of the Government's success; but whenever it goes up, it is evidence of somebody else's failure? Why is not the right hon. Gentleman man enough to own up properly to the reasons for the rise in unemployment and to accept the blame for his own policies? As he knows the economic and human cost of unemployment, what is he going to do now to stop unemployment rising still further?

The Prime Minister: Upon the right hon. Gentleman's own premise, he knows precisely the success that the Government have had. If he looks across the whole Community, he will see that our rate of unemployment is among the lowest in the Community, at 6·2 per cent. Long-term unemployment is still falling and the extent to which the economy has been revived can also be seen in the fact that 50 per cent. of those who have just lost their jobs will be back in work within three months.

Mr. Kinnock: This is the second time in a decade that the Government have brought severe recession and rising unemployment to this country. Will the Prime Minister now answer the question? What does he intend to do to stop unemployment rising further?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have a higher percentage of our work force in work than almost any other country in Europe. If the right hon. Gentleman is so worried about unemployment, why does he support a national minimum wage, which would cost three quarters of a million jobs?

Sir Peter Tapsell: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that when he leaves for Rome later this afternoon, he will carry with him the exceptional good wishes of the British people, who have been greatly impressed by his decisions and his bearing since he became Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall certainly endeavour to ensure at the European Council not only that we protect British interests but that we consider the interests of Europe as a whole.

Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pike: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that Christmas for many of my constituents and many hundreds of thousands of people throughout Britain will be marred by having to make appearances in court because of their inability to pay their poll tax? When will the Government recognise that making promises—or alleged promises—to do something in two years' time is not acceptable? Will he do something to remove the requirement on the lowest-paid people to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax and increase the level of income at which some rebate can be paid to those who cannot afford to pay their poll tax?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, a large number of people are eligible for substantial rebates. The hon. Gentleman would make a good start by persuading some of his hon. Friends to pay their community charge.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gill: When my right hon. Friend goes to Rome this weekend, will he bear it in mind that, in the final analysis, the British Government must go whichever way gives British agriculture and industry the best prospects of creating wealth for the people who live in these islands? Will he tell our European partners that wealth creation through free trade remains our top priority?

The Prime Minister: I shall be happy to carry that message to all members of the Community. I very much agree with my hon. Friend. A great deal of the growing prosperity in recent years has clearly been the result of the steady removal of barriers to trade. We wish that to continue.

Mr. Boateng: Last weekend in London the severe weather shelters were kept closed because it was not "cold enough". In the Prime Minister's classless, caring, opportunity society, how cold does it have to be and for how long before the homeless are given the opportunity of shelter and warmth?

The Prime Minister: In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he may be interested to know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will announce within the next few days a substantial number of new bed spaces in hostels and long-term housing in central London. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like this, but it is directly related to the point that the hon. Gentleman made. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is talking to front-line agencies and together they are developing new and more effective ways of getting rough sleepers off the streets. I should have thought that Opposition Members would wish to hear that and support it.

Mr. Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Moate: With regard to the Gulf crisis, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm today that any partial withdrawal by

Iraq from Kuwait would be wholly unacceptable and that Saddam Hussein must be required to comply in full with all the requirements of the United Nations resolutions?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm absolutely what my hon. Friend says. Partial withdrawal simply will not do. Iraq needs to comply fully with all the provisions of the UN Security Council resolutions. That means total and unconditional withdrawal. The United Nations has made it clear that the use of military force will be justifiable if Saddam Hussein has not met the requirements of the resolutions in full by 15 January.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is absolutely diabolical in this day and age for a 20-year-old, unemployed person to be sent to prison for failing to pay the poll tax? Would he care to reflect on the fact that if everybody touched the forelock and obediently stumped up the poll tax, herself would still be in 10 Downing street, Tarzan would still be languishing on the Back Benches and the poll tax would be under no immediate threat whatever?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are examining the whole question of the community charge and in due course we shall make a statement.

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on two significant, but contrasting parliamentary achievements that have recently occurred: first, that he is now the youngest serving Prime Minister of this country this century, and, secondly that his opposite number is the longest-serving Opposition leader in parliamentary history?

The Prime Minister: I shall no doubt grow older in the job and no doubt so will the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister agree that when he answered my question on Polaris last Thursday, he was unhappy with his answer? Will he confirm that, having had more time to look into the problems associated with Polaris, he must be even more unhappy? Is he confident that Polaris will go on being an effective deterrent for the next four years and can be kept safely at sea? Would not this be a good time to scrap it and put forward proposals for getting rid of our nuclear seaborne deterrent as part of the negotiations in the spring?

The Prime Minister: The nuclear deterrent has served this country extremely well in the past few years and I have no plans to change that policy.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Was the Prime Minister encouraged, as I was, by the reports of the Dail Eireann debate yesterday, which showed growing support for amendments to articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's


constitution? As those two articles claim jurisdiction over a part of the United Kingdom's territory, will the Prime Minister encourage that process?

The Prime Minister: I certainly propose to study carefully what was said yesterday.

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: On this our first opportunity, may I on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Prime Minister? Recently, he will have recognised that it is necessary to create confidence and trust in Northern Ireland to have political progress. Is he aware of the unease and alarm created by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland three weeks ago when he said that the British Government had
no … strategic, or economic interest in Northern Ireland"?
Will he, therefore, prove that he is the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, not just the Conservative party, and support and strengthen the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the troops are in Northern Ireland both because that is the wish of the people of Northern Ireland and to ensure the security of the people of Northern Ireland. That is and remains the position. It is generally accepted throughout Northern Ireland the my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is one of the best friends that the Province has had for a long time.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Is the Prime Minister aware that when he spoke recently about a classless society, he struck a chord with many of my constituents in Basildon? Does he recall that when he visited our town some time ago, he recognised that it had a fine community spirit, despite local socialists who try to cause class divisions by their support of Militant Tendency and the like? Does he agree that it is only the policies of the Conservative party that allow people to get ahead and that Opposition policies cause division and hold people back?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It always has been that way. The Conservative party is determined to increase choice and opportunity and, unlike Opposition Members, we shall not put barriers in the way of such opportunity and choice.

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Griffiths: Would the Prime Minister like to reflect upon the fact that the appalling unemployment figures announced today will be further augmented next month, not least by my constituents who are employed by a company called Euroshape, who had redundancy offered to them this week without any hope of pay? That company once employed 300 people, but what hope can the right hon. Gentleman offer them following his announcement on 27 October last year, when he said that the harsh truth was that if the policy was not hurting, it was not working? Will that message apply this year and next Christmas as well?

The Prime Minister: As the policy self-evidently is working, we shall first see a considerable reduction in inflation in the next few months. Following that reduction we shall return to a period of growth. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the past 10 years, our growth record has exceeded that of any other European country.

Business of the House

Mr. Bruce Grocott: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 DECEMBER—Proceedings in Committee of the Criminal Justice Bill on new clauses relating to capital punishment.
TUESDAY 18 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill.
Motion to take note of EC document relating to the establishment of a programme for research and technological development in human capital and mobility. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 19 DECEMBER—Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
THURSDAY 20 DECEMBER—Debates on the motion for the Adjournment.
It may be for the convenience of the house if I indicate that the business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Severn Bridges Bill.
Motion on the International Development Association (Ninth Replenishment) Order.
Motion on the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 15 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill.
WEDNESDAY 16 JANUARY—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on an opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.
THURSDAY 17 JANUARY—There will be a debate on a motion to take note of the Ibbs report on the House of Commons services.
Proceedings on the Census Confidentiality Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

FRIDAY 18 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

[Tuesday 18 December

Relevant European Community Document

7053/90 Training and Mobility of Researchers

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 11-xxx (1989–90), para 3]

Mr. Grocott: May I ask the Leader of the House when we shall debate the Cullen report into the Piper Alpha disaster? We know that there was negligence and that much needs to be done. Surely we owe it to the families of those who were killed to debate that report as a matter of urgency.
Yesterday, during Environment Question Time—many hon. Members now present were also present then—the discussion on the poll tax was stifled because of the disgraceful way in which the Secretary of State for the

Environment linked no fewer than eight questions. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers do not stand at the Dispatch Box next week or any other week and link eight questions in that way? Will he tell the new Secretary of State for the Environment that we are used to him abusing the Mace, but will he stop abusing the Order Paper?
On the Government's plans on opting-out hospitals, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is disgraceful that there is no established procedure for debating the opting-out proposals, which are causing concern to people throughout the country? Is he aware that the statement last week was totally inadequate and that many Opposition Members who had been leading campaigns against opting out were unable to take part in that short question and answer session? When can we have a full-scale debate before any more damage is done to the health service?

Mr. MacGregor: The answer to the first part of that question is that I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate, but suggest that it is a matter best left for discussion through the usual channels.
The answer to the second part, about the linking of questions, is that the questions were all on the same subject. The matter has been raised through the usual channels and I am considering the points that Opposition Members have made and which the hon. Gentleman made today.
The answer to the third part is that trust hospitals were widely debated many times when the Bill, now the Act, was proceeding through the House, so the issues and principles have been thoroughly aired. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Secretary of State for Health made a full statement on the point recently, so I see no need to provide for a debate in Government time. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends feel so strongly about the matter, opportunities are open to them to have debates on the issue in the House, and I have made one available in the first week back.

Mr. Quentin Davies: In the debate last week on the future of the European Community, the Foreign Secretary referred several times to the debate that we would be having on the economic aspects of that matter—specifically, on the intergovernmental conference on European monetary union. May we have an assurance that we shall have that debate fairly soon, so that at least there will be a theoretical possibility that the remarks made in the House during the debate could be taken into account by Ministers before irrevocable decisions are taken?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I agree that it is an important matter and that there is need for a debate on it. I hope to arrange one soon after the House returns.

Mr. James Wallace: As a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Leader of the House knows how important the annual hill farming review is to the farming industry. May we be assured that a statement on the matter will be made before the Christmas recess? Will he also provide a weekly progress report on the setting up of the Scottish Select Committee?

Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, I doubt whether I would want to give a weekly progress report, because I


have already said that I think it unlikely that progress will be made—[Interruption.] —so I would be wasting the time of the House if I gave a weekly progress report.
To answer the first point, I cannot guarantee a statement being made next week, but there will be opportunities for the matter to be raised, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, on the motion for the Christmas Adjournment.

Mr. David Porter: In the light of the bad weather last night, leading to floods and flood warnings on the Suffolk-Norfolk coast, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement to be made so that we may see whether the Government are making progress towards setting up one authority with overall responsibility for coastal protection around the whole of Britain?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will know, I am aware of, and very concerned about, the incidents to which he referred. We have a heavy programme next week, so it is unlikely that there will be a statement on the subject, but he could raise the issue on the motion for the Christmas Adjournment.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the tragedy that occurred yesterday, with the loss of six crewmen on the fishing vessel Premier. He and hon. Members have expressed their sympathy to my constituents, and that is much appreciated. On a more practical note, will the Department of Transport, in the coming days, advise the House or myself as the constituency hon. Member, or the local fishing office, of measures to try to raise the vessel, which I understand is lying in about 130m of water? That will be an expensive operation, but it is possible that the bodies of some of my missing constituents are contained in it, and obviously we should like to see every effort made to raise the vessel.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the whole House will want to express sympathy to the relatives and for their concerns about the incident—the hon. Lady is right about that. I shall draw her point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will want to make some comments about the tragic incident in his opening speech in the debate later this afternoon.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend see whether it might be possible to hold a debate in the new year, perhaps during the first week back, on the BBC and public service broadcasting? He may be aware that, during questions to the Home Office today, there was little opportunity for Conservative Members to say how much they admire the BBC, which has been brought to a pinnacle of achievement by Sir Ian Trethowan and Lord Swann, and we hope that it will continue its fine work.

Mr. MacGregor: It will not be possible in the first week back, for which I have already announced the business. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate, but I will bear his points in mind.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 49, which has attracted the support of 164 Members of all parties.
[That this House welcomes the book To Encourage Others by David A. Yallop, calling for an independent public

inquiry into the hanging of Derek Bentley in 1952; requests the Home Secretary to set up the inquiry as a matter of urgency; hopes that such a request will lead to a posthumous pardon; and feels that this will end a grave miscarriage of justice which leaves a permanent blot on the British judicial system—the hanging of an innocent man.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement as soon as possible so that this matter can be debated? And will he ask the Home Secretary whether he has considered the video sent him by Thames Television dealing with the same matter?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering representations made to him as a result of the book on the subject. I am not sure about the video, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on law and order? Does he agree that selective obedience to the law is a recipe for anarchy? Is he aware that yesterday the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) appeared in court for non-payment of the community charge? Is it not wrong—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not deal with matters of detail like that. The question should be about the business for next week.

Mr. MacGregor: There have been many opportunities —they have all been taken—to condemn Members of this House who have refused to pay their community charge, the more so because that affects many people who are less well off than they are.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that his negative answers to requests for a statement on haemophiliacs now look less than impressive, to put it kindly? As the nuclear test veterans have the same kind of powerful case but have been brushed aside by the Government and are dying, and as they should not be forced to go to the courts, will he arrange for a statement on those veterans next week?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I can arrange for a statement on the point, but I shall have a look at it and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
I did not give negative answers. I made it very clear that we were promising to keep the figure under review, and we reached a quick decision on that review. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the decision that has since been made on the haemophiliacs.

Mr. John Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for another and early debate on GATT? Is he aware that the top 20 British manufacturing companies still make more than half their foreign-earned profits from the north American market? This is a vital issue for employment in this country. Does he agree that this country and this House are in a unique position to mediate, through our Ministers, between the interests of north America and Europe? If the British tradition of free trade does not prevail across the Atlantic, we shall all be impoverished.

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree about the importance of the GATT negotiations, not least in the context to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. There is no disagreement about that in the Government. My right hon. Friends have often made that clear and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the Government have played an important part in trying to keep the negotiations moving and to reach a successful conclusion to them. We shall continue to try. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that he will make further efforts in that regard this weekend.
We shall have to decide an appropriate moment, whether in the form of a debate or a statement, at which the House can further deal with these issues and I shall bear that in mind.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, as the traditional defender of Back Benchers' rights, share the concern of many hon. Members that five Departments of government no longer have Select Committees scrutinising their work. Could the Lord President of the Council tell us whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will next week tell the House why he still opposes a Select Committee on Northern Irish Affairs, whether he now espouses a policy of condominium government for Northern Ireland or whether some other form of con-ship is being manufactured for the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. MacGregor: Again, I do not think that a statement on that matter would be appropriate next week. However, I shall ask my right hon. Friend to communicate again with the hon. Gentleman about the issue.

Mr. Chris Butler: My right hon. Friend may be aware that on 1 January 1991 the United Nations Decade Against Drug Abuse begins. Would not it be appropriate when we reassemble to debate these important matters?

Mr. MacGregor: They have been raised many times. My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw our attention to the fact that the United Nations Decade Against Drug Abuse begins on 1 January. We warmly welcome all international efforts to draw attention to the danger of drug misuse. As my hon. Friend knows, Britain has been at the forefront of efforts to co-ordinate policy with other European countries on that matter and I know that we shall remain there.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the Leader of the House aware that the answer given by the Prime Minister today to the question about unemployment by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition showed the Government's complete disregard for rising unemployment? Is he also aware that the unemployment figures for this month are the worst since 1981? Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friends to arrange for an early debate in Government time, because the Government are responsible for the level of unemployment, so that the matter can be debated and unemployment may return to the Government's agenda?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's accusations about my right hon. Friend. It is important to remember that the Government's policies have created well over 3 million extra jobs since 1983. It is also relevant that we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the

European Community. The hon. Gentleman asks for a debate, but he knows that we have debated economic matters a good deal in the past few weeks. Therefore, I cannot promise another early debate on the matter.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On the subject of Monday's debate and votes on capital punishment, how do the Government propose to deal with the ingenious but alarming new clause that has been tabled in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and several of his hon. Friends? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new clause, which seeks to abolish the death penalty for treason in time of war, raises a wide range of fundamental issues relating to the defence of the realm and constitutional principles which are utterly different from the normal arguments about capital punishment for murder? Is not that quite the wrong way for the House to tackle—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That issue would be more appropriate for Monday's debate.

Mr. Aitken: My question is simply this: will the Government allow the Treason 1790 Act to be repealed on a free vote on such a mish-mash of an amendment?

Mr. MacGregor: For Monday's debate, the Government have tried to ensure a range of clauses on the matter of capital punishment so that the House can not only have a proper debate but can take decisions by a free vote. I think that is how the House would wish to proceed.
My hon. Friend draws attention to the clause in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and some of his hon. Friends. It is not for me but for the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide whether to select that clause for debate. I think that my hon. Friend has a point when he says that it is in a different category from the other new clauses. If it is selected, it will be for the House to express its view in the debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who hopes to speak in the debate, will express some of his views on that matter and on the other clauses.

Mr. John Hughes: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 232, which draws attention to the plight of the elderly and the disabled in the recent blizzards?
[That this House is gravely concerned at the plight of the elderly, the disabled and all low income groups; is aware that the beauty of the Christmas card landscape, effected by the artistry of frost and snow, hides a relentless, remorseless enemy which brought death to some in the current severe winter weather and put at risk many more thousands who were required to use fuel to excess in the circumstances because of the abnormality of the extreme cold weather; and calls on the Prime Minister to bring an end to this risk by activating immediately the special cold weather payments.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the Prime Minister that an unheated home soon becomes an icy tomb and will he make the strongest representations to him to authorise the payment of the severe weather allowance?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that specific terms and conditions have to be met before that allowance can be paid, and that is the right way in which to approach the matter.

Mr. Ian Bruce: When we debate on 17 January how we conduct ourselves in the House, may we have an opportunity to vote on some issues and make some decisions? I have been in the House for nearly four years, during which time we have often debated these subjects, but we have never had an opportunity to vote for changes. Opposition Members too have campaigned long and hard for decisions to be made. May we do that on 17 January?

Mr. MacGregor: The debate on 17 January is on the Ibbs report, which is about the finance and administration of the House. It is an extremely good report and I pay tribute to Sir Robin Ibbs, and all who work with him, for his work on it. The report contains clear and specific recommendations and I hope that the House will express its views on those in the debate so that action can be taken on them.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does not the Leader of the House know that it is Government, not Opposition, policy to allow hospitals to opt out, and that one in five of the hospitals proposing to opt out are on Merseyside in my area, where there is no public or staff support for the proposals? Those proposals have never been debated on the Floor of the House. The people in my area are demanding an answer from the Government and an opportunity for their representatives to raise the issue on the Floor of the House.

Mr. MacGregor: The whole issue of the Government's NHS trust policy has been frequently debated in the House and in Committee. Many opportunities for raising specific cases in the House are available to hon. Members—through questions, Adjournment debates and many other ways. It is also possible to do so on Supply days. In the past, the Opposition have used Supply days not to debate their policies but usually to debate Government policies.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend register the widespread dismay expressed on both sides of the House in relation to a glaring omission from next week's business statement? Tuesday will be the first anniversary of the Security Service Act 1989, which enabled the Security Service to have a tribunal for the airing of complaints from the public. During the first year of its operation, the Commissioner of the Security Service is entitled to produce a report and to report to the House. Why is that report not to be debated in the House next week?

Mr. MacGregor: It will not be debated next week because we have other important business to debate next Tuesday, but I shall look into my hon. Friend's point and write to him about it.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the suffering and loss of life caused to animals being transported live to the continent for slaughter, on which there are a number of early-day motions? Is he aware of the intense public revulsion at the practice? If we cannot have a debate on that next week will he, as a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, impress upon his colleagues who now go to the Council of Agriculture Ministers the need to

change the rules so that animals that are due for slaughter on the continent should go there as carcases, not as live creatures?

Mr. MacGregor: That topic has been discussed several times and I cannot promise a debate on it next week, or in the first week that the House resumes. I am sure that there will be other opportunities to discuss that matter, which I know concerns many people.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on procedure, specifically in respect of the relationship between taxation and expenditure? In local government, it is not possible to make spending proposals without relating them directly to the revenue that must be raised. Many right hon. and hon. Members, and many others outside the House, are fed up with Opposition proposals which, although they may be desirable, are unachievable and take no account of the. cost. Can we bring our procedures into line with local government in that respect?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I very much share his view on the way in which the Opposition approach such matters. He will have an early opportunity to raise that subject, because we will have a debate on public expenditure plans not long after the House returns from the Christmas Adjournment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman review his decision about a statement on the crisis arising out of last week's severe weather conditions? Is he aware that, in the east midlands, more than 100,000 people are still without electricity and that thousands are without water? I have just spoken to a farmer who is still attempting to rescue 1,000 sheep and 100 cattle from snowdrifts and who is also without electricity and water. Will the Secretary of State for the Environment and Secretary of State for Energy get together to ensure that proper safeguards are immediately introduced to force the electricity boards to get the job done, that compensation is paid to those who have lost thousands and thousands of pounds, and that local authorities have enough money to do their job properly?

Mr. MacGregor: I extend my sympathy to all those who were without electricity during last week's exceptional weather conditions and particularly to those who remain without a supply. However, the new regional electricity companies mounted a magnificent effort in restoring supplies. Fewer than 43,000 customers remain without a supply, and all but a few in the most remote areas should have their supplies restored by the weekend. Co-operation between the electricity companies has been most impressive. East Midlands Electricity has about 2,000 operatives from other parts of the United Kingdom working to restore supplies, which is a good example of the co-operation that I have praised.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment? Recently, there have been redundancies in the glass manufacturing industry that relate to insulation. Could we have a debate on home insulation and the possibility of restoring grants, which would not only help to keep people warm but keep people in work?

Mr. MacGregor: There are regular opportunities to discuss such topics and the Government have taken action on some of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I cannot promise a debate in the near future.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House encourage the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement as soon as possible on British Rail's proposal to close the Speedlink fast overnight goods service, which will put between 1·5 million and 3 million tonnes of goods on to the roads? Are the Government serious about reducing road congestion or will they allow British Rail to close that valuable service, which will create about 1,000 redundancies and increase congestion? That can be avoided at the cost of only about £30 million.
The Confederation of British Industry—which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is a Tory front organisation —complains that road congestion already costs Britain £15 billion a year. Is that Tory policy in action or will the Government do something—or at least make a statement to the House?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the CBI and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that one must examine cost-effective solutions. The decision to close the Speedlink freight network from July 1991 is a commercial one for British Rail. A relevant factor is Speedlink's serious commercial losses of £30 million last year, increasing towards £40 million this year, on a turnover that is not much greater than £40 million.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathetic response to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), but may I point out, with respect, that responsibility for the safety of mariners—including fishermen—rests not with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but with the Secretary of State for Transport? None the less, I readily appreciate that a comment or two will be made on the subject during this evening's debate.
May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the last occasion on which the House debated the safety of fishermen at any length was in connection with a private Member's Bill presented by Sir Albert McQuarrie, the Safety at Sea Act 1986? Do not we need an early debate about the rules and regulations governing the occupational safety of the men who face so many physical and, I would say, man-made hazards as they go about their ordinary, everyday working lives?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that today's debate on fisheries matters is very important for the fishing industry. I hope that he agrees that, for the convenience of the House, we should reach it as soon as possible—taking into account briefly, as part of the debate, a statement on the tragic incident that has just occurred. I have already said that I will raise some of the other points that have arisen in connection with that incident with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Ron Brown: May we have an early debate on law and order? Earlier this year, a minor public figure was hauled before a Sussex court because of a story concocted by a former secretary and a known

criminal, backed by the News of the World. The police have since admitted that the fingerprint evidence did not match the fingerprints of the defendant.
Clearly, that is an important issue. Moreover, the Government and the Crown prosecution service are trying to bring Desi Ellis back from Ireland—to extradite him, in fact—on the basis of alleged fingerprint evidence. Surely the activities of the Crown prosecution service should be debated at length. Many other issues are involved, including the imprisonment of a person who has not paid the poll tax—and rightly so. We have a law in this country, but surely the House should examine the question of justice in detail, preferably at an early date.

Mr. MacGregor: We have had many debates recently on law-and-order issues. Obviously, I do not wish to comment on the specific points and the specific incident raised by the hon. Gentleman, because it is not a matter for me and I do not know the details, but I do not think that it justifies a full debate on law and order.

Mr. Greville Janner: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Home Secretary deliberately fail, or refuse, to answer a question about the Leicestershire police? In the circumstances, may we please have an early debate on the present dangerous circumstances? Not only is the police force undermanned, but it has run into a deficit of £1·25 million. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about what is happening to policing in our county. This is not a party matter; we are all anguished by the lowering of the protection that people need in these times when the crime rate is soaring in Leicestershire.

Mr. MacGregor: I did not hear those earlier exchanges, and I do not feel that the matter justifies a debate in Government time.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Government meet 51 per cent. of all police expenditure through specific grant and also meet additional expenditure through the revenue support grant. I understand that it is Leicestershire county council which is unwilling to meet its share of the costs faced by the Leicestershire constabulary, which is why cuts are now required.

Mr. Max Madden: May I press the Leader of the House for a statement next week on the Government's plans to help the homeless, which have just been announced by the Prime Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange, as part of that statement, for an urgent investigation of the cash crisis faced by the Bradford Cyrenians, which is threatening their ability to help the poor and homeless in Bradford? As Leader of the House, will he press the authorities to make Westminster Hall available to give shelter to the hundreds of men and women who are now sleeping rough throughout Westminster and who would also serve as a daily reminder to Conservative Members of the Government's failures in economic and social policy?

Mr. MacGregor: We have made several announce-ments about homelessness and the hon. Gentleman will know that an extra £300 million is targeted at London and the south-east to deal with that. That includes £115 million for the second year of the special homelessness initiative. Local authorities in London and the south-east will shortly be invited to submit bids on that.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider asking his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Social Security, to make an early statement about the operation of the cold weather payment? Is the Leader of the House aware that, if Tory Members are not concerned, Labour Members are desperately concerned about pensioners who are unable to keep their homes warm? Is not it disgraceful that, in this day and age, so many of our retired citizens have to live in such conditions during the winter months because the Government will not provide assistance? We require an early statement; we do not expect pensioners to freeze before the House of Commons has an opportunity to discuss the matter.

Mr. MacGregor: No. We devote substantial resources to pensioners in all sorts of ways, and we have also taken action, when appropriate, on severe cold weather payments. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will continue to keep a watchful eye on events and take action, as we have clone in the past.

Mr. Winnick: We want a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: As for a statement, we must wait to see whether we reach an appropriate moment for a statement.

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House look again at early-day motion 161 on reasonable hours?
[That this House notes the encouraging tone of the Prime Minister's reported remarks in the Mail on Sunday on 2nd December, relating to the introduction of more sensible hours and conditions for the House of Commons; and calls upon the Lord President of the Council to bring forward, after due consultation, proposals to effect such a change.
Will he welcome on a personal basis the Procedure Committee's decision to look at sitting hours early next year? If he chooses to submit evidence on the matter will he pay particular attention to the needs of hon. Members who travel from the north and from Scotland and Wales and how the arrangements can best suit them?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I am considering how best to take forward all the representa-tions made, and that includes what the Procedure Committee feels it should do. It has become clear from the way in which the debate has proceeded over the past few days, not necessarily in the Chamber but more widely, that there are many different points of view, depending on individual circumstances, not least the issue of where hon. Members' constituencies lie. All those issues will have to be taken into account.
The hon. Gentleman will know that this has been looked at several times in the past and that quite a few initiatives have been taken. I keep stressing that it is important for hon. Members to co-operate on all those initiatives, including those we are looking at now, if they are to be effective.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will next Monday's debate on the Criminal Justice Bill allow a comparison to be made between the maiden speech in the House of Lords yesterday of the former Home Secretary, Lord Waddington, on the need for the reduction of custodial sentences, and the sentencing last Friday of a

20-year-old unemployed man in Grantham for being unable to pay his poll tax? It has cost the state more in the past week to keep him in prison than the debt he owes.
If that is not possible, will the Leader of the House tell us when he intends to bring legislation before the House to bring English law in line with Scottish law? Two years ago —25 months, to be precise—the Government abolished imprisonment for debt in Scotland, so why is it that, in England and Wales, young people can still be put inside for the crime of being poor?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman frequently misses the point. I do not see how those issues can be raised in Monday's debate.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 223 on the electricity crisis in the east midlands, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
[That this House re-affirms its deep concern for the plight of masses of people in the East Midlands who are still without electricity supplies five days after the arrival of severe weather conditions; notes that on 12th December some 250,000 people were still without electricity supplies and that under present arrangements significant numbers of these will be without electricity for well over a week before their supplies are reconnected; expresses admiration for the considerable efforts of hard-pressed electricity workers it their attempts to re-establish supplies; but condemns utterly the failure of the Department of Energy to either declare that an emergency exists or to move essential resources into the East Midlands to tackle the crisis; regrets that East Midland's Electricity has itself to ask the Department of Energy to take emergency action; and believes that this is due to fears of the impact that such a move would have upon the floatation and sale of its electricity shares.]
For five and a half days now, 100,000 people in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and generally throughout the east midlands have been without electricity. The Minister said earlier that 43,000 customers had no supply. A total of 40,000 of them are in the east midlands area. There is a massive crisis and people have been without electricity for considerable periods up to five and a half days, but it will be considerably longer before their supplies are reconnected.
The problem exists not in isolated rural areas but in conurbations. We should have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy so that we can question him, or an emergency debate on an issue that is a crying shame. If we do not get that, we should get the resignation of the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that is appropriate, but I repeat that the regional electricity companies have been making superlative efforts to restore electricity supplies. I cited the fact that about 2,000 employees—relevant experts—from other parts of the country are helping to restore supplies to the east midlands. It has been a splendid effort by all concerned.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Government find time for an early debate on science policy, given the severe cuts in prospect in Britain's science base and the declining support for industrial research and new technology, at a time when our competitors are increasing theirs? Of the past six debates on science policy,


only one has been in Government time, and that was as long ago as Friday 14 June 1985. Is that a fair reflection of the Government's pride in their record?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Government expenditure on science, in terms of public funding, has increased substantially in the past two years. It would be appropriate, therefore, to ask that question in a debate on public expenditure. We intend to have a debate on the public expenditure White Paper fairly soon, when it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make such comments as he wishes. I am sure that he will receive a sound and good response from the Minister.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on large firms, particularly in the London area, that are encouraging their staff and officers to work illegally on the next two Sundays before Christmas? We have had numerous debates on Sunday trading and Sunday laws. Only last week, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), said:
The law is the law … There can be no dining a la carte with the law of the land."—[Official Report, 5 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 325–26.]
There should be no dining à la carte with the law on Sunday trading. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a debate and that those who are irresponsible enough to ask their staff to work on Sunday are stopped by him and by the Government?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Shops Act 1950 provides that, in general, shops should be closed for the serving of customers on Sunday, except for the transactions listed in the Act. No exception is made for Sundays at any particular time of the year. Equally, the hon. Gentleman will know that we debated the anomalies that have arisen as a result of that Act but failed to reach a solution that commanded general agreement. The Government have made it clear that they are prepared to consider alternative methods of reform if they are practical, enforceable and likely to command a parliamentary majority—a precondition of a successful outcome. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficulties of finding an agreed way forward.

Consolidated Fund Bill and Christmas Adjournment

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday 19 December.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my Office not later than 10 pm on Monday 17 December. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published the following day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
I remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 20 December, up to nine Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the results made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Death Penalty (Amendment)

4.15 p

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a simple matter. In answering the question raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the Leader of the House said that the amendment which stands for debate on Monday in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), myself and others sought to overturn the Treason Act 1790. That is completely untrue. The record should be amended to show that we seek only to change the penalty.

Mr. Speaker: Assuming that the amendment is called for debate, that matter will be debated on Monday next.

BILLS PRESENTED

WRITTEN CONSTITUTION

Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide for the drawing up of a written constitution for the United Kingdom; for its consideration by the people and Parliament of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS)

Mr. George Howarth, supported by Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Joe Benton, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. David Clelland, Ms. Clare Short and Mr. William O'Brien, presented a Bill to establish a limit to the period during which homeless people may be accommodated in bed and breakfast accommodation to enable local authorities to make use of accumulated capital receipts in order to provide additional low cost housing for rent; to enable local authorities to finance private sector leasing arrangements for housing homeless people by restoring the provision for a separate allowance within housing revenue accounts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

ESTIMATES DAY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY] [1ST PART]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1990–91 CLASS IV, VOTE 2

[Relevant documents: Third report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1989–90 on Company Investigations ( House of Commons Paper No. 36) and the Government reply contained in the White Paper, "Company Investigations" (Cm. 1149).]

Companies and Financial Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £14,304,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration. —[Mr. Redwood.]

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I beg to move,
That Class IV, Vote 2 be reduced by £10,000 in respect of Subhead K1 (consumer and investor protection).The Select Committee on Trade and Industry has carried out extensive investigations into the way in which investigators work in policing business standards. Rising at this hour of the afternoon, I almost feel that I should seek the leave of the House. This is the second time that I have spoken in the House today, having spoken after midnight last night. I hope that I do not trespass on your patience, Mr. Speaker, by speaking now. I trust that hon. Members will hear me as kindly now as they did then. My hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs, who sits on the Government Front Bench, had to endure that speech as well.
We are calling for a reduction of £10,000–I believe that it used to be £1,000, but it has been inflated to a more respectable figure. We want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the public are rightly worried about investigation standards and the qualities of those carrying out investigations on behalf of the Government in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the self-regulating regulatory agencies which result from the financial legislation of the past decade.
It is interesting to note that the increase proposed in the supplementary estimates is £2·7 million. Although that sum covers expenditure on several aspects, it reflects the rise to £9 million in 1989–90 from just under £7 million in the previous financial year. Even taking inflation into account, there has been a small, but important, increase in expenditure.
Hon. Members who supported me on the Select Committee and others wish to take part in the debate, and I trust that I shall not detain them long. I should like to concentrate on three items: who pays for investigations, who investigates and a particular investigation relating to the House of Fraser.
Who pays? It is interesting to note that, in 1988–89, the cost of the Department of Trade and Industry investigations was £6·2 million and the income from


Companies house fees and charges was set to recover the costs arising from the regulation of companies, including the costs of investigations. Three investigations have principally dominated the headlines of the press. The investigation into the House of Fraser cost £1·5 million, the investigation into Guinness cost £1·6 million and the investigation into County NatWest cost £1·1 million.
The Select Committee recommended that more steps should be taken to recover the cost of investigation from the companies and individuals involved unless the inspectors found no evidence of wrongdoing. We persist in that view, and we do not expect those who have not erred and strayed to have to pay for those who have. We hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that requirement should be an expectation of Government and should be under review at all times, so that we ensure that those who have erred and strayed pay for their misconduct.

Mr. Tim Smith: Can my hon. Friend explain what the Select Committee had in mind? Was it that the inspectors should make a recommendation about whether the company under investigation should pay the costs, or was it that the Secretary of State should make such a recommendation? Would not it be rather invidious to leave it to the Secretary of State? It might be better for the inspectors in reaching their conclusions to determine that matter.

Mr. Warren: rose—

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is quite important that the Chairman of the Select Committee should not be asked what the Committee had in mind. What it had in mind it said in its report. Although any member of the Committee may give his own view, it is quite improper to ask the Chairman of the Committee what the Committee had in mind that it did not say in its report.

Mr. Warren: I am extremely grateful for both those interventions. One has ensured that I do not commit the Committee to something that it did not have in mind and the other has ensured that I am allowed to say what I have in mind.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), I must say that I do not mind who makes the recommendation as long as somebody does. If my hon. Friend wants me to choose, I will say that, bearing in mind the fact that we believe that the inspectors should come to conclusions, I believe that they should also come to a conclusion on the costs. However, I am prepared to be swayed on the matter in our debate.
Who investigates? The Committee was very concerned that it took a long time for the inspectors, who are the investigators, to be appointed, especially in insider dealing cases, in which it can take weeks or months. That response time is not in line with business needs. Business should not be held up if there are no problems, so one must get the answers as quickly as possible. The fact that weeks or months often elapse before inspectors are appointed is not acceptable in this country where the highest standards are expected of business and where the Government are expected to act promptly in response to the perceived problems.
We came to the conclusion that the right staff—there are many in the Department of Trade and Industry—need to be supported by more people from various professionally skilled occupations. It was good to see that the Government conceded in their reply:
it would be desirable for a somewhat higher proportion of investigation staff to have full professional qualifications".
That is important. We have noticed in the past decade of inspections that too often we did not see inspectors reappear to help, so the Government and the public are losing the lessons that have been learnt. The learning curve for inspectors is always steep; they come into the job and they have to find out how to do it. It takes them a long time to acquire the internal expertise they need to carry out investigations.
I hope that it will be possible for the Government, and especially for the Department of Trade and Industry, to look at the calibre of the staff in the investigation service, and either to bring in more people or to encourage people within the Department to enhance their own qualifications so that the highest possible standards of investigation can be available at all times. Perhaps the Department could establish a panel of inspectors who could be on call so that there should be no delays such as those that we encountered in our review.

Sir Anthony Grant: I am not endeavouring to probe the collective mind of the Committee, of which I was a member, but does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have the very best inspectors, they are inevitably people who are busy and successful in their own professions and cannot therefore spend a vast amount of time probing and fathoming things as my hon. Friend has suggested? That is another reason why it is important that there should be very good back-up, since otherwise we shall have second-rate inspectors or the inspectors will be deterred from carrying out that work ever again because it takes up so much time.

Mr. Warren: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we hope that more inspectors will be drawn from within the Department, thus keeping the learning that has been acquired at public expense within the Department.
Let us consider the time that recent investigations have taken to complete. The 10 investigations in 1987 took an average of 14 months to be completed under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986. In 1989, 16 investigations were launched, of which seven are not yet complete, but the average time is already running at over 12 months. I know that it looks on the surface as if there has been more malpractice, but perhaps one could look at it the other way round and say that there is a higher quality of investigation in the Department. In any case, there is no shortening of the time taken in investigations. In saying that, I am not taking any account of the point that I made earlier about the time that it takes to appoint the inspectors.
I turn now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) about the duties of inspectors. The Committee came to a firm conclusion, after hearing evidence from both sides, that conclusions should be expected from the inspectors, taking account of the evidence before them. We are pleased that the Government agree with that recommendation, because the inspectors must have an end duty in sight, which is what one would expect of men of the calibre required to take part in the investigation.
My last point on this area deals with the time taken by the investigations, to which I have already referred. In their reply, the Government said that they did not believe that it was wise to have time targets. The Committee was concerned that if targets were not set, the open-ended nature of the investigations would not concentrate the minds of the investigators in the way that we believe they should be concentrated. This is merely standard management practice, and I am sure that the whole Committee will stand with me in commending it to the House.
I refer now to the investigation into the House of Fraser. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the then Leader of the House replied, in answer to requests from hon. Members of all parties about the publication of the House of Fraser report, that he had taken note of the fact that the Select Committee was itself carrying out an investigation. I drew his attention to the fact that we were not looking at specific investigations, but at the nature of investigations and the way in which they proceed with a view to making recommendations thereon. However, during those investigations and subsequent to the publication of our report in May this year and the Government's response to it three months later, we have been receiving further information on the subject.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House of Fraser report was passed to several authorities in March this year. The Bank of England had received a copy earlier. Those who received the report besides the Bank of England included the Solicitors Complaints Bureau of the Law Society, the Securities and Investments Board, the Securities Association and the body with that most complicated title of all—the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association, or FIMBRA. I shall go through the last four in that group and return to the position of the Bank of England.
The Solicitors Complaints Bureau said in a memoran-dum which the Department of Trade and Industry kindly passed to the Select Committee that it recently received a report from the solicitors instructed by it to investigate the part played by Herbert Smith in the matters dealt with in the inspectors' report. I have been pleased to learn in the past few days that no evidence has been found of professional misconduct by that firm of solicitors. However, the time taken to carry out that evaluation is worrying. It took some seven months. It must cause considerable anxiety to a firm such as Herbert Smith, which is well known internationally, to know that it is under investigation. It was probably dealing with all sorts of contracts of major importance during that time, some of which may not have been placed with it while the investigation was proceeding.
I have no duty to speak on behalf of any firm, hut it occurred to me that the time taken to investigate a company such as Herbert Smith is unduly long, particularly when the Solicitors Complaints Bureau—a professional organisation—has the duty to carry out that study.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: In view of what he just said, will the Member—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Honourable Member.

Ms. Mowlam: I beg his pardon.
Will the hon. Member accept that one of the difficulties of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau in the report was over

the distinction between a solicitor acting as a referee and a solicitor acting as an advocate and that that was part of the confusion? Does he have any views on that point which the Solicitors Complaints Bureau should consider?

Mr. Warren: The hon. Lady is right. I refer to her as an honourable Lady, and I accept her comment.
The Securities and Investments Board believed that it did not have much more to contribute on the matter, and I accept what it said for the moment. I am reticent to pass any comment because the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will have the pleasure of the company of members of the board as witnesses next week. I would not wish to dull the enthusiasm of any members of the Select Committee to hear the excellent questions that I am storing up for that occasion.
Turning to the Securities Association, it is good to see that, since the events leading up to the appointment of the inspectors, both Kleinwort Benson and Macarthur and Co. Ltd have been through the Securities Association's rigorous and vigorous authorisation process and that both firms are now subject to the principles and rules established by the Financial Services Act 1986. It is worrying that it took an investigation to bring them to that happy position.
I turn lastly to FIMBRA, before coming to the Bank of England. FIMBRA has told us that it is monitoring the position continuously—a nice phrase. But it is the regulator of only a small proportion of the business of Harrods bank.
The area of principal concern to me, and on which I believe that other hon. Members wish to comment, is the position of the Bank of England. It has had several inquiries by the Select Committee. We asked it on 21 March 1990 what action was being taken about Harrods bank following publication of the inspectors' report on the House of Fraser. There ensued an exchange of letters. The Governor of the Bank relied on section 82 of the Banking Act 1987 and told the Chairman of the Select Committee and, therefore, the whole Committee, in a letter dated 3 August 1990:
I am told by a senior counsel that I am at risk under section 82 if I disclose information concerning Harrods bank unless I am able to do so under one of the exceptions provided for in the Act".
Section 82 makes it a criminal offence to disclose information received under the Banking Act other than to people specified in section 84 or, under section 83, to others to enable the bank to discharge its functions under the Act—something with which you are immediately familiar, Madam Deputy Speaker. That did not satisfy the Committee. In response to my further letter of 17 October, the Governor replied that the legal advice which he sought did not cover whether the Select Committee could compel him to disclose confidential Banking Act information, nor whether in so doing he might be protected by parliamentary privilege. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is much more adept at these matters than I am, and he will wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to comment on this particular area.
I have taken advice from those who serve us in this House, and I am told that, if the Governor gave the information to the Select Committee, his evidence would be covered by parliamentary privilege. On page 132 of "Erskine May", the general rule is that the House


will treat the bringing of legal proceedings against any person on account of any evidence which he may have given in the course of any proceedings in the House or before one of its committees as a breach of privilege.
Whether the courts would entertain an action against the Governor for having given evidence contrary to the provisions of a statute, and how the House would enforce its authority if necessary, would depend on the circumstances. I hope that you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, in the traditions of the House, it would be surprising if the House did not take some action in support of the Select Committee and its privileges.
I have not yet covered the powers of the Select Committee to send for persons, papers and records. Before embarking on any such matter the Select Committee would consider the consequences carefully. I speak for myself when I say that I hope that the Governor of the Bank of England will look carefully at his position. As, since before March 1990, he has had an opportunity to look at the situation relating to Harrods bank, it is high time that he responded on behalf of the Bank of England to this worrying matter, whether or not the bank and its directors, including the Fayeds, are trading in a proper manner as required under the Banking Act 1987.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend reaches the substance of the matter, may I ask whether it is not absolutely clear that the order of the House establishing the Select Committee gives the Committee power to send for persons, papers and records and that, in the light of the precedent of the moneylenders' case, the House enforces the order of the Committee to answer to the satisfaction of the Committee, not the House, such questions as it is pleased to put? There is no question whatever that the Governor of the Bank of England is not above the law of the land or of this House, but is bound to answer questions from the House. A judge who entertained a criminal proceeding against him in the light of that would expose himself to dismissal by a motion of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Warren: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is perfectly correct. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Committee on which I serve as Chairman has many parts to it. I am the nicest of people and I am surrounded by elegant gentlemen, like my hon. Friend, who are of a much tougher calibre than I am and who express forcefully what I feel. It is hard to hold on to my job with such elegant advice all around me. We have yet to hear from our friends on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: My hon. Friend will recall that, in the section of our report that dealt with the House of Fraser, two main conclusions and two recommendations were made. Neither of the Committee's important conclusions was addressed in the Government's published response. Both the Committee's recommendations have been summarily dismissed by the Government in their response. Those of us who do not want that matter to be whitewashed, who are not prepared for it to be quietly forgotten—many regulatory bodies would seem to prefer that—are not happy that the House, or the Committee, should persist, pursue and prosecute it. Surely

it is most unsatisfactory that such important conclusions and recommendations were not given the attention, or assent, that they deserved in the Government's response.

Mr. Warren: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has summed up accurately the feeling of the entire Committee. I should draw to my hon. Friend's attention, however, the fact that, since the publication of our report, new brooms have swept through the Department of Trade and Industry in Victoria street, of which my hon. Friend the Minister is one, ably supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
If my hon. Friend the Minister has an opportunity to participate, I am sure that he will want to assure all hon. Members, and not just my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and me, that there is no cause for the concern that my hon. Friend was right to express. It is not right that this issue should drag on for ever in this manner.
I have sought to identify the need for constant public assurance that the United Kingdom regulatory system is of world class calibre. That assurance of quality must be the hallmark of the United Kingdom if it is to be the premier financial services nation of Europe. We cannot count on London, Bristol, Edinburgh or any other of our financial centres holding on to that premier position. Frankfurt is coming up fast behind, and it is anxious to establish itself as the major focus of Europe.
The Government must demonstrate that they un-derstand that assurance is required today and at all times. The Government must recognise their duties, so that there is a constant assessment of the self-regulatory organisa-tions' performance. Investors require such essential confidence in those organisations at all times. The powers of protection and vigilance must be sufficient to the task expected of the Government.

Mr. Stan Crowther: The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) has, on behalf of our Committee, covered the specific recommendations in the report. I should prefer to make a few general comments.
No one really knows the full extent of financial crime committed here or elsewhere. The one thing that is certain, however, is that far too much of it is going on. On page 4 of the Government's response to our report, they make an apt comment when they say:
The financial services area is a particularly attractive target for fraud, since its raw material is other people's money".
That sentence sums up the problem well, but it is a pity that the Government's response has, in general, failed to recognise that the problem is as serious as that sentence suggests.
It is clear that the development of information technology, which allows vast sums of money to be switched around the world in a matter of seconds, has made financial crime much easier. It is also clear that that crime is now committed internationally on an unprecedented scale. I fear that the villains are in front of the forces of law and order and are getting even further ahead, which is disturbing.
On 15 October, the House debated one of our previous reports on financial services in relation to the single European market. I contributed to that debate and the


Minister, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—I congratulate him on his well-deserved promotion—accused me of casting aspersions
on practically the entire City and much of the corporate sector."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 1020.]
Nothing could be further from the truth. I did not doubt then, nor do I now, that the vast majority of people employed in financial services are perfectly honest, and as anxious as we are to root out the criminals. That does not alter the fact, however, that such crime is widespread. I do not believe that the country is tackling it as vigorously as necessary.
A few weeks ago, before our debate in October, the newly appointed director of the Serious Fraud Office said that the cases under investigation by her office, or awaiting trial, involved sums totalling £1·16 billion. By any standards, that is not peanuts; such is the scale of the problem.
During our long inquiry, I felt that the cases that were coming to light represented a minority—the tip of a large iceberg. One of the problems facing the prosecuting authorities is the slow pace at which investigations proceed —the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye has referred to that. The most obvious recent example of that is the notorious Barlow Clowes affair, but there are many others. We are far too slow in proceeding with such investigations, and that creates problems for the prosecuting authorities.
Another problem that confronts those authorities is that, once the wrongdoer is caught and convicted, the courts often impose derisory sentences. We appear to operate different scales of penalties for different classes of offence, even though all the cases relate to dishonesty of one kind or another.
A few weeks ago, there was a press report about a member of a local authority who received a fairly lengthy jail sentence for fiddling his travel expenses to the extent of a few hundred pounds. When we contrast that with the sentences that were imposed at the end of the Guinness trial on some extremely rich people who engaged in serious crime involving millions of pounds, no one can pretend that there is any real fair play when it comes to court decisions. The public find that most disturbing.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: May I say that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman?

Sir Anthony Grant: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. One intervention at a time, please.

Mr. Crowther: I am happy to give way again.

Sir Anthony Grant: I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but judges must take into consideration the length of time that people have been in agony or at risk because the case has taken such a long time to come before court. In those circumstances, much of the punishment has been suffered before the actual conviction. That fact, however, reinforces the hon. Gentleman's point that it is necessary for procedures to be speeded up. The Guinness case was far too long; it is an example of why justice should be speedy as well as just.

Mr. Crowther: I agree, and the whole Committee was unanimous on that issue. I hope that it will be taken up by those responsible for carrying out investigations and bringing matters to the courts.
Most alarming throughout our inquiry was the complacency, indeed inertia, of the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). From his laid-back attitude, one might imagine that there was no problem and that any difficulties that did exist were not worth bothering about. His attitude was exemplified by his almost incredible refusal to take any action against the people whose reprehensible conduct was graphically described in the House of Fraser report. It was almost unbelievable that no action was taken at the end of it all.
That general feeling that there is not a lot to worry about comes through in the Government's response to our report. It does not apply as seriously as it did to the attitude of the then Secretary of State, for the Government admit that there is a problem, but they are not taking it as seriously as they should, and I do not find in their response the sense of urgency that the Committee tried to bring to the attention of the Government.
I hope that the present Secretary of State will a more realistic attitude. As a former Treasury Minister, perhaps he understands more clearly the need for absolute probity in financial dealings. I agree with the hon. Member for Hasting and Rye that, if the City of London is to retain its place as the greatest financial centre of the western world, those who besmirch its reputation by criminal acts must be relentlessly pursued and severely punished when they are caught.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I cannot reasonably, in the short time we have for this debate, cover the whole spectrum of this immensely important report. I express at the start my disappointment that the new Secretary of State did not think that the response to this very major report which is being debated—which is not an Adjournment debate, to which a Parliamentary Secretary or Under-Secretary of State is the appropriate replier for the Government—was one that warranted his presence in the House. I think that is a matter of regret. I am bound to balance that comment by saying that I am equally disappointed that my colleagues on both sides of the House do not also regard it as a matter which ought to require their attendance in the House.
If you look, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the number of questions that there have been on the Order Paper in the last nine months on the matters covered by this report, I think it is a matter of shame that the hon. Members who asked those questions did not think it necessary to be here today to listen to, or participate in, this debate. This is not a matter of criticism merely of hon. Members or Ministers; it is of both.
I direct my particular attention to recommendations which I will read out. Number 23:
We recommend that company law be amended to provide that (1) if inspectors report that directors have given false information to them, the Secretary of State should automatically apply to the court for their disqualification".
That has not been done in the case of the House of Fraser, where knowingly lying statements were made to the inspectors.
I am not a lawyer, but I have little doubt that the provision of the Perjury Act 1911, I think section 6, which makes it a criminal offence knowingly to make an untrue statement, which is materially untrue, before a court or tribunal, even though not under oath, constitutes perjury, where the person concerned has a duty to do so. I understand that in the case of the Al Fayeds, the only question which perplexed the mind of the Director of Public Prosecutions was the extent to which they had a duty to make the—untrue—statements which they made. But untrue they were, and that is known.
Whether the fate of a grandiose firm of grocers and haberdashers should be a matter of concern to this House I beg leave to doubt. That is not a great matter to us, however Harrods may describe itself. But it happens to embody a bank, Harrods bank, and the regulatory organisation for banks is the Governor of the Bank of England, and it is that to which I intend to turn my main remarks today.
For most regulatory organisations there is a Minister answerable to this House, or else there is a court of law. But here we have the Governor of the Bank of England who is the regulator of banks with very clear duties laid on him by statute, and among those are whether the persons running a bank or controlling it are fit and proper persons.
How it can be held that somebody who has lied in a major degree to a company inspector is a fit and proper person to control the Harrods bank passes my understanding. So the first thing that is relevant for us to consider is whether the Governor of the Bank of England, who was invited to give private evidence to the Committee but declined to do so, has discharged his duty properly. If he does not discharge it properly in the case of Harrods bank, are we—and we are the Select Committee on Trade and Industry upstairs, and we are Members of the House of Commons here in this debate—entitled to assume, or dare we assume, that he does perform those functions properly when the Government—the Minister responding to our recommendations—have given no satisfactory reply to our recommendations?
Why does it matter if a fishmonger, butcher and haberdasher with a bank attached has a corrupt ownership, because the corrupt ownership is also the shareholders? So in law the shareholders are not at risk except by the same corrupt ownership. It matters for this reason. The whole of that pyramid enterprise is enormously in debt, and its debts extend in a large degree to the weakest of the three great banks in this country, whose own stability is not out of question at this moment.
So if the Governor of the Bank of England does not discharge his regulatory duty properly in the context of Harrods bank, and the whole edifice of which it is part comes tumbling down because it cannot meet the interest on its enormous loan of debt, that has an implication—I would not want to say a fatal one because it probably is not a fatal implication—for one of our three great clearing banks for which the Governor of the Bank of England has another enormous regulatory responsibility.
The House of Commons has, and it uses as its instrument, the Select Committees which have grown up, first, since 1971; and then—since the then Government refused to put the Procedure Committee's recommendations for reformation of them into practice, it had to wait

until 1980—since 1980 we have had the much stronger Select Committees, in which the House reposes its trust for examining not only Government but other bodies which control our nation, in a manner directly or indirectly responsible to Ministers, who in turn are responsible to this House. And that is why this debate is so important. It is important because the banking system of our country is different from that of the United States of America, which may shortly be in cascade collapse through lack of proper regulation. We have to learn from the lessons of other countries, and within the United Kingdom we have a very imperfect system of banking regulation—imperfect if the Governor of the Bank of England either does not read evidence sent and addressed to him by first-hand witnesses —not tittle-tattle—or if he ignores such evidence because he finds it embarrassing. If he will not respond to the Select Committees of this House which have power to take evidence in strict confidence, then to whom is he answerable?

Mr. Warren: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to make it clear that as yet we have not sought to send for the Governor, but that we have the right to do so.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We have communicated with the Governor. He has refused to give us information, and the moment of this debate was not of our choice. It was the choice of the Leader of the House, and I would have preferred it to have come later so that we could have had the Governor of the Bank of England, who, in response to our first inquiry, asked the wrong questions of his legal advisers. He did not ask whether he could tell the Committee the truth. He asked whether, outside the Committee, revealing information that we needed to discharge our obligations to this House would constitute a criminal offence.
This was not the question that the Governor needed to ask. I could have told him the answer to the question that was material: that proceedings in Parliament, which taking evidence from witnesses pursuant to the Order of the House most certainly is, are wholly outside the province of the criminal law of this country; and any judge who heard an indictment on such a matter and who did not throw it out as outside his jurisdiction would open himself to dismissal by both Houses, not because of amour propre. The Houses of Parliament today only exert their privilege not as it has historically existed but in so far as it is strictly necessary for them to fulfil the trust that the House has reposed in them. That is the restriction in which privilege today is applied.
Can anybody believe that inquiring why the Governor of the Bank of England does not use his regulatory functions against admitted liars running a bank belonging to and secured on an organisation of doubtful capacity to meet its financial obligations and in debt to one of our major banks is not a matter on which this House has the proper right to inquire in confidence? Then the only way to deal with the situation—I repeat to the Minister of State, since the Secretary of State is not here—is to raise it tonight on the amendment—a very rare one indeed—to the proceedings today.
I add for the information of the House that I have sat on the Select Committee since it first existed in 1971. Unusually, this Committee has always sat mixed. It has not sat Government supporters on the right, Opposition on the left, and then voted on party lines. One of the


greatest Chairmen under whom I have ever sat is the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). This Committee since 1971 not only has always sat mixed: it has always endeavoured to serve the House of Commons rather than the political parties from which its members are drawn. I wish that that could be said of all Select Committees.
In concentrating on the supervision of banking, which has to be one of the aspects that emerge from our report on company investigations, I do not wish to usurp the function of the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service. It is because in this case there is a bank which is embodied in a grocer, fishmonger and haberdasher that it comes within our remit. But if that—and here I rest my remarks—reveals a dangerous weakness in the control mechanism which is the personal responsibility of the Governor of the Bank of England, and he has declined either to justify his inaction or to report his action to the Committee charged by this House with supervising that immensely important aspect of our affairs, then he ought to call into consideration his own occupancy of that office.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: First, I must declare an interest. I am the president of Manufacturing, Science, Finance, which has more than 80,000 members working in financial services. Secondly, I congratulate the Minister for Corporate Affairs on his promotion and look forward to his winding-up speech.
Thirdly, this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to follow my good friend the hon. Member for Tiverton, (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), to whom it is always worth listening. He has no interest of any kind to declare and is fearless and of independent mind. I do not always agree with his views, but I always listen to them in the Chamber or in Committee with great interest. All hon. Members have benefited from his forthright style in presenting his case. I agree with every word that he said about the Governor of the Bank of England. The Committee needs to ensure that the Governor appears before it and stops making feeble excuses and hiding behind legal opinion which, as the hon. Member for Tiverton has shown, does not stand up to scrutiny.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, including the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), I shall refer to the House of Fraser. I am sure that you will be busy over Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if you can spare the time and have not already read the inspector's report, may I recommend that you do so because it is far better than any mystery novel. If a book were published containing events such as those that appear in that report, no one would believe that they had happened. The television serial "House of Cards" is more believable than some of the events that are recorded in the report.
The report is right in what it says about the people running the bank and the largest corner shop in the country. The report says that the Fayed brothers dishonestly misrepresented their origin, their wealth, their business interests and their resources to the Secretary of State, the Office of Fair Trading, the press, the House of Fraser board and shareholders and their own advisers. It is amazing that the Fayed brothers are still there.
The report has shown deep flaws in our system of company investigation and in the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in protecting shareholders, consumers and, not least, the public interest. After six years and six Secretaries of State, and despite the catalogue of dishonesty and deceit outlined in the report, it is clear that no action will be taken against the Fayed brothers by the DTI, by any of the regulatory bodies or by the Governor of the Bank of England. There could not be a clearer indictment of the system as it stands.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the history of this case. In 1984–85 and amid some controversy, the Fayeds acquired House of Fraser Holdings. That gave them not only the ownership of the largest chain of department stores in Europe but, as the hon. Member for Tiverton said, status as bankers through Harrods bank. As the inspector's report shows, since then the Fayeds have systematically lied about their circumstances to prevent the authorities from intervening.
In 1985, the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry were deliberately misleds by the Fayeds about their assets and business interests. Their claims that they had widespread international interests in a number of businesses have since been shown to be false. Their interests in shipping, construction, oil, banking and other areas were minimal and their claims did not fit the facts that emerged.
The assets of the Fayeds were tiny and could not have generated anything like the capital that was used in the House of Fraser takeover. That has been satisfactorily illustrated in the inspector's report. Time after time the Fayeds failed to give a proper account of how they financed that takeover. People could speculate about that, but I do not intend to do so. The claims made on behalf of the Fayeds by Kleinwort Benson and by Herbert Smith have also been shown to be untrue.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: False.

Mr. Hoyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman. False is a better word. There is a fine distinction in relation to Herbert Smith because it was not acting as advocate for the Fayeds at that time. We must take up the matter with the Law Society when it conducts an inquiry. Perhaps the House should return to the issue of how the firm of Herbert Smith discharged its duty in that respect. I am not completely satisfied about the way in which it was done. The hon. Member for Tiverton told me that what the Fayeds said to Kleinwort and to Herbert Smith was false.
The Fayeds' claim that they were worth several billion dollars was also false and they are not from an established family of Egyptian landowners. One genuine detail appears in the inspector's report, and it is about the conduct of Mohamed Fayed in the capital of Haiti in 1964. According to the report, he entered into a deal, using a false identity, to modernise the harbour, and subsequently absconded with up to $187,500 that belonged to the harbour authority.
Despite everything that we know, the Government have repeatedly refused to refer the takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and have not sought to disqualify the Fayeds as directors. It seems to be acceptable to the Government to have proven liars and at least one proven thief in control of a major company, the


House of Fraser, and certainly in control of a bank. I am sure that that causes the Minister some concern and I shall listen with interest to what he says about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) spoke about the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). From the beginning he was not only laid back but confused the issue in his statement to the House on 7 March. On the one hand he said that disqualification should be used as a means of protection for the public, and on the other that it should be used
to protect the interests of shareholders."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 876.]
Section 8(1) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 allows the Secretary of State to apply for the disqualification of an individual when he considers it to be expedient in the public interest".
Under section 8(2) the court would then disqualify a director if
it is satisfied that his conduct in relation to the company makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
In what sense can the public interest possibly be protected by taking no action? Why were not the courts asked to make their own judgment on the conduct of the Fayeds and their fitness to run the House of Fraser?
Even more disgraceful was the former Secretary of State's attitude when he appeared before the Select Committee. He refused to give reasons for his failure to take any action that would have led to disqualification. I still do not know why he did not go to court. That is still a mystery to me. He gave us no explanation for it.
The Government's conduct during the entire episode has been negligent. They failed to conduct a proper investigation during the takeover, and once the facts were known they failed either to refer the takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or to take steps to have the Fayeds disqualified as directors.
If we can have no faith in the Government's willingness to clamp down on shady business practices, we cannot have much more faith in the regulatory bodies that have been set up.
The hon. Member for Tiverton expressed the case exceedingly well in his forthright manner when he said that the Governor of the Bank of England has so far refused to come before the Select Committee. The Bank of England will not tell us what it intends to do, but it is obvious that it intends to do nothing.
The Securities and Investments Board has completely washed its hands of the issue. The Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association is waiting to see what everyone else will do. That is not its only failure. It also failed to act in the public interest with regard to the Levitt group where 18,000 investors are in some difficulty. In the light of what the Select Committee had to say about auditors, it is interesting that Levitt's auditors, Stoy Hayward, were also accountants for Polly Peck. It is a matter of great concern that FIMBRA has done nothing about that.
As I said earlier, the Law Society cleared Herbert Smith on the ground that it was a referee in the affair, despite the fact that it was used by the Fayeds to provide false information to the authorities.
It is perfectly clear that the structure of company investigations in Britain is a bureaucratic nightmare. Because there are so many bodies, the buck can be passed from one authority to another, and often the wrongdoers manage to slip away. We have far too many bodies and the knife should be taken to them. Their streamlining is long overdue. While we have so many bodies, it is not surprising that the crime that was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham is taking place to the extent that it is.
I hope that there will be some action on many of the Select Committee's recommendations. In particular, I would like a central clearing house to provide comprehensive co-ordination of the regulatory regime to be established without delay. The Department of Trade and Industry should more closely monitor the workings of the regulatory bodies and develop its own permanent staff of qualified investigators.
In addition, the broader public interest and the way in which it is applied should be more clearly enshrined in company law. Intermediaries should be under an obligation to ensure that they do not facilitate dishonest business practices. Finally, providing false information to inspectors should become a criminal offence and should lead to automatic referral for disqualification from directorship. That is essential.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham that we must not be complacent about the position of the City of London. That we are the greatest trading financial centre in western Europe gives me no grounds for complacency. We are looking at a Europe, whether we like it or not, in which the deutschmark dominates and the Bundesbank is becoming more and more powerful. Unless something is done to clean up our act, to clean up the City of London once and for all, in years to come the centre of financial dealing will move from here to Frankfurt or Berlin. Let us do all that we can to prevent that from happening.

Mr. Douglas French: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry when it prepared its report. I congratulate the Select Committee on a comprehensive, extremely interesting and effective report. Having listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I realise that not having participated in those proceedings was a privilege forgone. However, it means that I have not formed any entrenched views on the matter of the House of Fraser, so I shall leave others to speak about that.
I want to focus my remarks on some of the Select Committee's other recommendations, in particular recommendation 21, which received a reply on page 15 of the Government's response. That recommendation says:
We recommend that the DTI monitors closely the performance of the SIB and SROs in discharging their investigatory duties and reports annually to Parliament.
As the House will know, under section 114 of the Financial Services Act 1986, the Secretary of State has transferred most of his powers under that Act to the SIB, including investigations and enforcement powers. The Secretary of State has the responsibility of ensuring that those transferred powers are properly carried out.
I wish to address some remarks to the respective costs and effectiveness of self-regulation compared with statutory regulation, particularly as it applies to financial services. In particular, I want to refer to the Government's response on page 15. The Government clearly believe that the new arrangements under the Financial Services Act 1986 need a period of stability, to bed down and to demonstrate the Act's full effectiveness. That period of bedding down is fast running out. It will not be long before the Government must decide whether they are to introduce further legislation to amend the 1986 Act's operation, or should consider alternative solutions to the problems that remain under that legislation.
I do not want to see statutory regulation of financial services. That would result in substantial extra costs for everyone, which would affect the level of funding that we are debating tonight. Also, best business practice in the financial services sector is much more likely to be the route to satisfactory results than a legal jungle of the kind that is to be found in other countries, notably the United States. Having said that, it is essential that the work of FIMBRA, the SIB and the other SROs is made more effective. If that means providing them with additional funding through the DTI—though admittedly the SROs do not receive that at present—or, as The Economist put it recently, beefing them up with taxpayers' money, so be it.
I believe that the Securities and Investments Board is fairly conscious of the need to watch costs. I expect that, when its chairman meets the Select Committee on 19 December, he will show that the board is cost-conscious. There has been some misguided criticism of the SIB, with references to its luxurious new offices and its staffing levels, but much more important is the extent to which the board recognises when it is appropriate to deploy its full statutory powers in making an investigation, or when its objectives can be readily achieved by less formal and expensive means. Its judgment in that respect has generally been sound. However, I remain of the opinion that the SIB is not as effective as it should be—particularly in its relationship with the different SROs, and with FIMBRA in particular.
FIM BRA has some considerable operating strengths. I spent some time at its headquarters examining its procedures, and reached the conclusion that it has great strengths, particularly in the collection and collation of material about offenders and would-be offenders. That part of its operation is efficiently and carefully run, and secures most of the information it needs. None the less, FIMBRA remains a victim of its own rule book. In the public's perception, there is a gap between what FIMBRA should do and what it is able to do. There is a gap also between the point at which FIMBRA's responsibilities and powers end and those of the SIB begin, which gives rise to much misunderstanding and ambiguity. Consequently, certain practices have a tendency to fall between two stools.
That is particularly evident in cases where FIMBRA decides to terminate a company's membership. From that moment, FIMBRA ceases to have responsibility for the ex-member's conduct, and the SIB assumes it. In my experience, the board has shown some reluctance to pursue ex-FIMBRA members in respect of misconduct during their period of membership of FIMBRA, even though the SIB has responsibility for monitoring them. That gap urgently needs plugging.
There is something of a gap also between the SIB'S responsibilities and those of the Department of Trade and Industry, which devolves to the board the bulk of its monitoring responsibilities. However, I know of cases in which, when a point has been put to the SIB, it has responded that it is powerless to act, or has passed responsibility to the DTI. But when the same point is taken up with the DTI, it argues that the matter remains the responsibility of the board. That is a nightmare for people pursuing important inquiries.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is unacceptable.

Mr. French: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely unacceptable. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to tighten up the lacuna between the DTI's responsibilities and those devolved to the SIB. Members of the general public and others wanting to undertake serious inquiries do not want to be shuffled off from one Government body to another.
I take the view that, in financial services, as in other consumer areas, the principle of caveat emptor remains extremely sound. That does not mean that the public should take a total risk. The public may be expected to do so in respect of the quality of an investment, and that risk cannot be removed from them. However, whereas one can make a judgment at the time of purchase about the quality of a pair of shoes, it is not reasonable to expect an individual investor to make a judgment as to whether or not the company in which he is investing his funds is honest and correctly administered. The individual investor does not have sufficient information on which to form a view and to make a proper judgment.
Nevertheless, if an investor is called upon to judge the integrity, honesty or administrative competence of a financial institution or intermediary, he should not be hampered in his attempt to do so by the presence of a FIMBRA imprimatur, as displayed in the literature or on the premises of the firm in question. Such an imprimatur, if it conveys anything at all, conveys the message that the company has been judged as honest and one with which the investor may reasonably do business. That is what the FIMBRA imprimatur conveys to the majority of the investing public: that the organisation's integrity has already been screened. When FIMBRA membership is withdrawn without proper publicity and public knowledge, as has happened, the investor is being perfectly reasonable when he protests that he thought that FIMBRA's stamp would provide him with some safeguard.

Mr. Tim Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks, but a difficulty arises because there is an expectation gap—
I say that as FIMBRA's adviser. The FIMBRA imprimatur gives some investors the impression that they have a total guarantee, and caveat emptor appears to have gone completely out of the window.

Mr. French: I accept my hon. Friend's argument, and I should not want investors to imagine that the FIMBRA imprimatur provided them with a total guarantee.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friends have used the phrase "total guarantee". Can we distinguish between a guarantee against criminal conduct and a guarantee of profitability? If an investment yields no profits, it is a bad investment and the result of bad judgment. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French)


is making—quite rightly—is that FIMBRA membership should not be taken to relate to profitability; it is to do with policing against criminal dishonesty in the running of businesses.

Mr. French: That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. I would not seek to protect an individual investor against the investment ability of the firm into which he was putting his money; that is a risk that he must take. There can never be any guarantee in that regard: there will be good investment companies and there will be bad ones, and we must accept the position as it is. If the FIMBRA imprimatur is to mean anything, however, it should mean that a company is adjudged to be an honest company that administers its affairs correctly. At present, the public are confusing the two issues, believing that the one is the equivalent of the other.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Which it is not.

Mr. French: Which it is not.
If an investor loses his money in circumstances in which compensation is due, he will encounter significant weaknesses in the present compensation scheme. Since August 1988, under the Financial Services Act, compensation for a loss of up to £30,000 has stood at 100 per cent. It stands at 90 per cent. for a further loss of up to £20,000, with a maximum of £48,000. The scheme is run by a separate company, but financed by levies from the SROs. The payments, however, are not guaranteed: compensation will depend on the number of claims presented in any given year.
Thus, someone unfortunate enough to make his claim in the wrong part of the year, however valid that claim, may not receive the compensation that he might have received had the claim been made earlier in the calendar cycle. That, surely, is unsatisfactory: if there is to be a compensation scheme, it must of necessity be open-ended to the extent that it is not time-limited.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Does he not agree, however, that difficulties are caused to people who may be faced with a bewildering array of investor compensation schemes? Those dealing with other bodies covered by the Financial Services Act —such as the recognised professional bodies—may find themselves in a very different position from those using companies covered by the self-regulatory organisations created specifically by the Act.

Mr. French: That is certainly a problem, and I think that much more clarification is needed. It may be simply a question of communication, but I suspect that it goes rather further, and that a tightening of the system will be necessary to enable people to understand fully the circumstances in which they would receive compensation and the precise source of that compensation. If that requires additional public expenditure, we can no doubt make savings elsewhere to cover it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend has taught me something this evening. I have studied the matter with some assiduity, but I did not know that the pathetic guarantee which replaced the £100,000 stock exchange guarantee, and which has not been adjusted in accordance

with inflation and the cost-of-living index in the two and a half or three years since its introduction, tapered off as the year went by. Will my hon. Friend comment on that lack of indexation, and on the difference between the payment now made if a stockbroker defaults and the previous £100,000 guarantee—or was it an unlimited guarantee?

Mr. French: The compensation to which I was referring does not relate to matters connected with stockbroking firms; it relates to personal investors, and would apply, for example, to an investor who lost money as a result of investing with a FIMBRA member. Over a period, the compensation funds available run out, so that, at the end of the cycle, an investor may run the risk of not receiving the compensation that he might legitimately expect to receive earlier in the cycle.

Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman said that he would welcome the use of public funds if an increase in the scheme was necessary, and implied that he was sure that the Minister could find such funds. Has he any suggestions about where the Minister could find them—bearing in mind the fact that the Minister took the Barlow Clowes compensation funds from the budget for small businesses, research and innovation and the regions, as reported in the estimates?

Mr. French: I was not proposing to make any suggestion at this stage, although I shall have something to say about Barlow Clowes a little later. I do not believe that public funding is essential for such purposes; it is one solution, but it would also be possible, within the existing framework, to raise more funds than are currently raised through a levy on the SROs, which derive their funds from subscribing members. If, however, the money cannot be raised through an extension of the existing arrangements, I would expect a small saving to be made somewhere in the DTI's budget. In the context of that entire budget, we are talking about a very small amount of cash.
We see under subheading (k) of class 4, vote 2 that the figure of £156 million is listed for 1989–90, relating to
Special payments to the Government's agents in connection with Barlow Clowes".
That sum does not need to be included in this year's estimate as the Barlow Clowes affair is now behind us, but I believe that there are other special cases that come close to being in the same category.
Let me cite a constituency-related case. C. J. How, a company that operated in Gloucester, Cheltenham and Worcester, was a FIMBRA member, and accepted investments from many of my constituents as well as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) and, probably, others in that part of the world. Some of the investments amounted to £20,000 or more. The firm was suspended in April 1987 for failing to submit its accounts. In January 1988, its FIMBRA membership was formally withdrawn because of accounting problems, and at that point FIMBRA's responsibilities were ended.
The direct responsibilities of the SIB began in April 1988, which was when the relevant part of the Financial Services Act came into force. That meant that, between January and April 1988, the DTI was itself responsible for monitoring the affairs of this ex-FIMBRA member. By August 1989—some 16 months later—the DTI had stepped in and stopped C. J. How from running its


business altogether. It then became clear, however, that, in the intervening period—after FIMBRA membership had been withdrawn—particular categories of the firm's business had continued; that unit trust companies and life assurance companies had continued to supply it with investment products; and that investors had continued to invest.
One of the reasons for investors continuing to invest was that they had not been told about the termination of membership. Existing members reinvested and there were new investors because they did not know that C. J. How was no longer a member of FIMBRA. When asked about that, one of the reasons given by FIMBRA is that it has to restrain itself in the extent to which it publicises the withdrawal of membership in cases where there may be damage to the remaining part of the business that is unaffected by the withdrawal or, in extreme cases, where there might be a claim for defamation.
FIMBRA makes announcements in trade papers, but such specialist papers are not read by ordinary investors who walk down the high street. It is essential, when membership is to be withdrawn, that a way should be found to let potential or existing investors know about it. It should be more effective than now and should not involve any problems of defamation or damage to the rest of the business.
At the time of the withdrawal of membership, FIMBRA claimed to have no evidence of fraud or misappropriation. Clients were said not to have been complaining. At that time, no clients were seen to be at risk. However, in the event, many clients lost a substantial amount of money, and in that way it bears a close resemblance to the procedures in the Barlow Clowes affair. As the Barlow Clowes investors have received a substantial amount of compensation, as provided for in the estimates last year, at the very least the investors who lost money between January and April 1988 when the scrutiny of the company lay with the Department of Trade and Industry —it was no longer a member of FIMBRA, and the Securities and Investments Board was not responsible—the Department should accept some responsibility for the losses incurred, especially for those who invested in a company where the FIMBRA imprimatur was still in evidence.
I wish to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and the remarks attributed yesterday—correctly, I hope—to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). The hon. Member for Redcar said that the Levitt company—that seems to be on everybody's mind this week—raises serious questions about how FIMBRA does its job and what protection is being provided for small investors. I agree that it does raise those issues.
Some of the events in the Levitt story are extremely similar to those involved in the cases of Barlow Clowes and C. J. How. It is about time that we began to learn from experience. FIMBRA became alarmed during a routine inspection of Levitt when it discovered invoices of £21 million appearing apparently from nowhere. Presumably, in this case, it was to get funds into the company rather than the other way around. That is a substantial sum of money. One must ask whether the discovery came about from one day to the next or whether it evolved over a period. If the latter is the case, it suggests that more regular routine inspections by FIMBRA should be the order of the day.
FIMBRA declared itself dissatisfied with the com-pany's accounting records. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North pointed out, it apparently relied upon assurances from the auditors of Polly Peck, if you please, that the client's assets were intact. As I understand it, FIMBRA did not make a formal announcement at that time because of potential effects on the liquidity of the company and the fact that it had no evidence of mismanagement or misappropriation of funds. Therefore, it kept its inquiry secret to avoid public panic.
As I understand it, and on the basis of press reports over the past seven days, even now the company has not been formally suspended by the SIB but, rather strangely, it has been "effectively suspended". Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us the difference between those two terms. What is more, FIMBRA pronounced that it considered that client money was not thought to be at risk. That was only a few days ago, yet this morning one sees that there are projected losses of up to £40 million. I wait to see how those two positions are reconciled. It may be that the £40 million has nothing to do with client funds. We do not know. But I suspect that the two sums have been muddled up.

Mr. Warren: I have before me a document published this afternoon by FIMBRA, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend would like to take it into account. It says:
FIMBRA's newly-appointed Chief Executive … has praised FIMBRA's regulatory action in respect of The Levitt group Limited.
Is that not a little self-congratulatory?

Mr. French: FIMBRA's new chief executive has been in his job for only a few days or weeks. I suspect that he was not in post when the earlier investigations should have been taking place. However, I agree that that comment seems rather more casual than is appropriate in the circumstances. I look forward with great interest to reading the full statement.
One key problem in the case involving the Levitt group is that there are no specific rules about the way in which financial services companies recognise receipts from long-term contracts, particularly from insurance commissions. The receipt of such commis-sions may be spread over a considerable time, but they may be brought into account the moment the policy or instrument has been sold. The Levitt group has admitted that the commissions were put into its accounts when the contracts were formally signed. That provides no allowance for subsequent cancellation of investments which frequently occurs in that type of personal investment. Therefore, the company is cashing in on the commission before it is in the bag. This is fundamentally unsatisfactory and a proper rule to address the problem should be set out by FIMBRA or the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation.
Section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 provides that Department of Trade and Industry staff can investigate where they have grounds for suspicion of fraud, misconduct or failure to provide shareholders with information that they may reasonably expect to have. I believe that there is a significant lack of enforcement of those provisions. I want to give an example. I am thinking of cases that also affect the stock exchange regulations, where undertakings are given to repay loan stock at a date in the future but where nothing is done at the date of maturity.
For example, the Metropolitan water board 'B' stock was issued under the registration of the Bank of England in a prospectus going back as far as 1908. It was due for repayment in 1958. It was not repaid in 1958. The Metropolitan water board was taken over in 1974 by Thames Water, which was privatised in 1989. The flotation document contains a small paragraph on contingent liabilities, which says:
Thames Water has been informed that a holder of part of the loan stock considers such stock to have been overdue for a number of years prior to the establishment of Thames Water Authority and that such stock is immediately repayable together with an additional amount of interest at market rates. The Directors of the company have been advised that the principal amount of stock potentially involved is unlikely to exceed £3 million.
That reference to £3 million is relegated to a small paragraph in the flotation document.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Was not that a rather economical statement by the directors? Should not they have said whether or not their legal advice was that that amount, however much, was owing or not?

Mr. French: My hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth.
The loan stock holders who should have been repaid in 1958 have lost the value of that stock, which remains unpaid, and the interest on it. They have suffered from the fall in the value of the pound since 1958, which amounts to about 90 per cent. If all those factors are taken into account, far from it being a contingent liability of £3 million, it may easily be 10 times as much. If the fall of the pound is taken into account, it may be a further 10 times higher even than that.
Although I believe that that loan stock should be repaid, I accept that there may be some argument as to why it may not be due. But I cannot defend the failure to state clearly whether it will be repaid, and if not, why it will not be repaid. What hope is there for the small investor whose predecessors invested in that stock? Is he to take up the burden through the courts of reclaiming the amount that he believes to be due? If he is not to do so, could not he reasonably be expected to be told that he has no case? The position in the flotation document is ambiguous.
That situation is known to the Governor of the Bank of England—to the Treasury, to the stock exchange, to the directors of Thames Water, who are potentially, if not actually, in breach of the Companies Act, and to the Department of Trade and Industry. It has been known for some considerable time, yet no one has been willing to act. A regulatory system that permits that is inadequate and should be dealt with promptly.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I hope not to take up too much of the House's time, but the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am a member, has performed an important function in its report. As it is an all-party Committee, it gives the lie to anyone who might suggest that those who want vigorously and rigorously to pursue the problems of cleaning up the City are simply weevils in the great biscuit of capitalism and do not have the interests of the City at heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) made his views on the matter quite clear and I thoroughly

agree with him. It is in the best interests of the City that all these matters, and the detailed matters referred to by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), are pursued with the utmost rigour.
It has emerged clearly in the debate and from the report that what should concern us is not the writing of a bible to explain the concept of due diligence or to file any amount of appendices, principles or sub-principles to clarify what obligations are owed to a client, but regulation, compliance and enforcement. My hon. Friends and others mentioned the problems at Harrods bank. I shall not refer to them because, bearing in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), and as I have greengrocery in my blood, I should not wish it to be suggested that haberdashery and greengrocery were not equally honourable professions compared with banking. I venture to suggest to the hon. Member for Tiverton that beetroot will be boiled long after the last banker has been buried with whatever honours he or she may have deserved.
There is no doubt but that compliance is at the heart of the matter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) on her efforts in exposing the Levitt group, with the result that this afternoon an arrest has been made.
It would be unfortunate and wrong to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester in attributing responsibility for regulation to one or two of the self-regulatory organisations or in singling out individual self-regulatory organisations such as the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association for scapegoating. The structure of compliance is wrong, not the performance of an individual part of it. It would be unfortunate to single out FIMBRA—I have no brief for FIMBRA—because perhaps more than any of the SROs it has tried to let the world know about its regulatory activities. It has attempted to combat the difficulty that was referred to by the hon. Member for Gloucester—that in publishing the names of people from whom it has withdrawn recognition it leaves itself liable to subsequent action. None the less, its record in that regard strikes me as being at least as honourable as any of the other self-regulatory bodies and better than most. It would be unfortunate to think that the matter could be resolved by scapegoating the performance of any of the organisations.
Resources are of fundamental importance. Any organisation whose activities must be financed by levies on its membership will experience difficulty in exercising effective compliance if the resources that it needs to carry out the compliance effectively are drawn exclusively from those members. Budgeting for effective compliance is one of the great weaknesses of the system created by the Financial Service Act 1986.
The Department of Trade and Industry has no problem with resources because its compliance activities are financed from the surpluses or profits made from the Companies House agency. I think that last year those profits or surpluses amounted to £11 million. Oddly, far from there being a shortage of resources for public sector enforcement, a profit is being made from it. Plenty of resources are available.
Those who served on last year's Finance Bill Committee will recall the concession that was given to the City on stamp duty relief in anticipation of paperless trading. Many members of the Committee were staggered to learn that the relief of stamp duty meant a loss of


revenue to the Exchequer of £900 million a year. In that context, there can be no difficulty about finding public resources to beef up whatever system of compliance we may choose to adopt, whether it be a statutory one or one using the existing self-regulatory bodies. There can be no doubt about that.
The present system has limitations and weaknesses. When a crisis arises, there is almost an embarrassment of different bodies involved, all with a small corner of the action. This points up some major discrepancies between the course of action pursued by outfits such as FIMBRA, which attempt to let the world know what they are doing in pursuing their regulatory activities, and bodies such as the Serious Fraud Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, which operate on different principles and where the public's need to know is not so clearly recognised.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an important difference between real and formal information? As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) pointed out, advertisements in financial journals, which often people do not read, may exculpate someone in law for not announcing what he did. But if FIMBRA wants to let investors know when it imposes restrictions, it should issue that information to the popular press rather than just put a notice in financial journals that only financial advisers read.

Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but we should not lose sight of the fact that even the system of financial advisers that the City has may not be sufficiently effective in picking up these problems to circulate the information. Commenting on the problems of the Levitt group which had hit the newspapers, Tuesday's Financial Times stated:
The accounts told a wonderful story of vaulting profits and turnover … but gave very litty indication about the way in which the figures were calculated.
It is clear that, given the system of auditing and accountancy, even insiders with expert knowledge find it difficult to comprehend the meaning of some published accounts. That point is recognised in the Select Committee's second recommendation.
We will not make much further progress on company regulations until we tackle the weaknesses of the system of accountancy and auditing. We must recognise the problems in terms of setting accountancy standards—which are reluctantly beginning to be addressed—and the practice of auditing. Auditing firms enjoy a monopoly on external auditing functions. The top 10 firms may possess enormous resources arising out of the fee income from their practice, amounting to thousands of millions of pounds a year. They are major businesses by any measure of size or practice and they wield enormous power. Their performance in the Polly Peck and Levitt group matters does not lend total confidence. Accounts are being exposed as practically meaningless, offering no protection to anyone. They have been beautifully prepared, filed and presented, but have turned out to be worthless. I hope that the Select Committee's recommendation will be pursued vigorously.
In defence of the existing SROs, I hope that those who apply to them for recognition—I hope that this treatment will be extended to the recognised professional bodies which existed before the Financial Services Act and which were caught up in its mechanism—in the conduct of financial business and who give false information will be

subject to criminal sanctions in exactly the same way as people who give false information to the Securities and Investments Board.
I wish to return to the central recommendation in the Select Committee's first report. We must answer the following questions: what is a company and to whom does it belong? In British company law, a company is narrowly defined—it is the property of its shareholders and directors. We are now confronted with a new situation in which new classes of people are involved in a company's affairs, many of them indirectly through their ownership of life insurance or pension funds. The problems, oppor-tunities and investments of those people are not recognised properly in the existing structure of British company law.
In a few years' time, we will be confronted with the problem of reconciling our company law with that of Europe, which operates on different principles. It operates in the Christian Democratic tradition—I put it that way because it may be more acceptable to Conservative Members—of social partnership in which workers, employees and managers are recognised as full partners who, through their labour, have a property right in the companies for which they work. Reconciliation of the European approaches to the question "What is a company?" and the traditional British one will trigger a wave of new approaches in company law and new company reforms.
Many of the proposals by the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) in the debates on the previous Companies Bill will be relevant to that reconciliation—the proposals for audit committees and two-tier boards and the proposals to increase the role of the independent directors accountable to specific social partners, to members of the social constituencies of which we must now recognise companies are a part. With those thoughts, I shall sit down in the knowledge that I shall give the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Chichester a chance to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: In the short time left in the debate, I should like to make a few comments because my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and all members of the Select Committee have done the House a singular service in undertaking this inquiry and bringing forward their report. Ever since the passage of the Financial Services Act 1986, the Banking Act 1987, the Building Societies Act 1986 and the latest Companies Acts, some of us have pressed for the supervisory process to be monitored more carefully and be accountable more regularly. Some of us said in the House and directly to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that we would like the Committee to do that. The Committee has done that job in the context of the report, and I am grateful for that. It is an interesting, positive and constructive report.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for referring to the amendment that I and others tabled for debate on the Companies Bill. There is a strong case for empowering members of boards to have rights of auditing reporting and a separate statutory responsibility to ensure that the prudential management of company funds is discharged properly. Under our current unitary board structure, we


shall do that only by biting the bullet and empowering a specific body of directors to take that responsibility and not leave it to the voluntary processes, which are disregarded by many companies.
There is an on-going need for the Select Committee and for the House to supervise the supervisors. In that context, I was pleased to learn that the Committee intends next week to ask the Securities and Investments Board to appear before it so that it can inquire into the board's activities and into its discharge of its responsibilities under the Financial Services Act 1986. That is excellent news and follows the Government's response on ways in which supervisors can be held more accountable.
Other hon. Members have referred to Harrods and to the role of the Bank of England. I believe that, although, strictly speaking, the Governor of the Bank of England may have been correct in his legal interpretation of section 82 of the Banking Act 1987, it would probably have been a better judgment from all points of view if he had decided to appear before the Committee, if it had invited him to do so. I understand that the Committee has not asked the Governor of the Bank of England to appear before it because the bank has submitted a memorandum in answer to a number of questions and has sought to explain why, for legal reasons, it is not willing to go far in answering the questions that the Committee might put.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Banking Bill. It was clearly not the intention of the House or of that Committee that we should not be able to obtain essential information about the supervision of the banking system. Although it is said that the House of Commons was not expressly mentioned as one of the exceptions to section 82, I believe that it would have been a better judgment for the Governor of the Bank of England to be more forthcoming. We share the objective of trying to ensure the protection of depositors' funds. Confidence is involved in this and the Governor of the Bank of England could have been rather more forthcoming.

Mr. Crowther: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nelson: No, as time is limited and I have a lot more to say.
In recommendation 2, the Select Committee suggested:
the permission for auditors to disclose confidential information to the supervisory authorities should be raised to the level of a statutory obligation.
The House has considered that from time to time, but the Government have been reluctant—as they are again on this occasion—to raise that obligation to more than a moral one. That is probably right as the present improved procedures for reporting are satisfactory. However, there are still shortcomings and the way in which they should be overcome is not, as the Committee suggests, by raising the obligation to a statutory level, but by doing exactly what I proposed during the passage of the Companies Bill.
We should have audit committees for public limited companies above a certain size. If we brought that about, we should prevent autocratic and powerful chairmen or chief executives of public limited companies being able effectively to defraud the shareholders and to misuse funds under their control. At present, many non-executives in such companies are placemen—appointees of the chairman and the chief executive. They are yes-men on the unitary board. We must find a way to embolden them and

to reinforce their ability to bring to account directors who might subvert or covertly misuse funds that are not theirs. As directors of public companies, they are trustees for the shareholders, for the creditors and, to some extent, for the employees.
Non-executives should be given a statutory responsibility and a statutory ability to inquire about substantial movements of funds within a company. There should, through the audit committee, be a separate reporting requirement from that of reporting to the auditors. We should insist that all the non-executive members of the board—and not the other members—say at each annual general meeting, "Yes, we certify that the auditors have been to see us. We have asked whether there are any unusual movements, capital flows, disbursements or payments that do not fall within the articles of association as we understand them. We are satisfied with the answers that we have received. If we were not satisfied, we should have brought them to the attention of the board." That would not change the course of events, but the matter would be flagged if there were a statutory requirement that at every annual general meeting there must be a report that the responsibilities have been discharged.
The Department of Trade and Industry has always believed that it must not separate the responsibilities of directors of the board. However, we now face the problem of leverage buy-outs in which massive amounts are involved. Companies nowadays are vulnerable to the misuse of funds or to being defrauded by particular individuals. We live in changing times. We must amend our company law and our supervisory structures within companies so that we can flag the problems far earlier and thereby prevent many problems happening. That major change will come about, although it may require a bear market and some more disasters first.
Apart from that omission, we now have a sound and effective supervisory structure. If we can bolster that structure from time to time through the discriminating scrutiny of the House, as the Select Committee has done, it will be all to the good for the corporate sector and we shall be discharging an important parliamentary responsibility.

Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and all the members of the Committee on producing a comprehensive report on company investiga-tions. The report is worthy of examination, although I am not saying that I agree with the Committee's conclusions.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that it is welcome news that, next week, the Select Committee is to take evidence from the Securities and Investments Board. When we discussed the structure of the regulatory regime under the Financial Services Act 1986, we were clear that the board was to be accountable through the Secretary of State to Parliament. Parliament has a duty to examine every so often the activities of the SIB and to look at the annual report and accounts. I am not quite as complacent as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) is about the costs, and the Select Committee may want to ask a few questions on that. The SIB does not have the same direct pressure on it as the underlying self-regulatory bodies have


from their members to keep costs down. However, under the Companies Act 1989, the SIB now has a statutory duty to ensure that it delivers regulations that are not merely effective, but cost-effective.
I began working in the City at the beginning of January 1966—almost a quarter of a century ago. Since then, there have been many changes in the City—most of which, I believe, have been for the better. The changes were most notable in the 1980s, when the City became one of the three pre-eminent financial centres of the world, along with Tokyo and New York. That occurred because of the Government's deregulatory moves during that period, which attracted banks and others from all over the world to the City of London. Today, the City of London is pre-eminent not only in banking. The Baltic exchange remains the centre of the shipping business and of the insurance business. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) mentioned accountancy firms, which are very successful, do a great deal of business overseas, and contribute substantially to our invisible exports.
When we discuss regulation and the important matter of the protection of investors, we must remember that we do not want to over-regulate and thus drive business away from the City. We must find the balance between the two policy objectives. I believe that, in general, we have it about right and that we should not go too far down the road of additional burdens of regulation.
The other thing that has changed radically in the past 10 years has been regulation itself. Five to 10 years ago, many of the businesses that we have been discussing would have been wholly unregulated. Many of the members of the Financial Intermediaries, Manager and Brokers Regulatory Association still object to the fact that they are subject to regulation. They still find that difficult to accept. Firms of accountants and solicitors have been regulated for many years by their own organisations but, until April 1988, there was no organisation to regulate many of the small financial services businesses. Many are literally shops in the high streets, which offer insurance and other financial services products. They are still getting used to the idea that, in the 1990s, they have to pay a price if they wish to offer financial advice, and especially if they are taking clients' money and investing it on their behalf.
There can be no objection to such regulation. I am a supporter of the Financial Services Act 1986 and the structures that we established under its provisions. Although I understand the frustration of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Finch) about its failures and weaknesses, given that this system is so new and has been such a radical change, I believe that we should not make any more major changes until FIMBRA has had an opportunity to prove itself. After all, changes were made as recently as the Companies Act 1989. They were designed to introduce a simpler form of regulation but many of them have yet to work through the system. We should allow them to do so. Two of the SROs—the self-regulatory organisations—are about to merge, which will produce a more efficient system.
We have also seen the establishment of the Serious Fraud Office. We should not underestimate what it is doing at the moment. I went to the SFO about six weeks ago and found it a most impressive operation. We did not have a Serious Fraud Office before, and the responsibility for dealing with serious fraud was widely spread across the different police forces. Today, all the major fraud cases are

dealt with by people of the highest calibre. I am glad that the SFO now employs a few accountants who can get to grips with balance sheets. Although my hon. Friends may not believe it, that was a major deficiency previously, because the police did not have an adequate number of people who were sufficiently numerate to cope with major fraud. The SFO also has impressive information technology systems.
Although it would not be appropriate to go into too much detail, I recommend any hon. Member who is interested to visit the Serious Fraud Office to see what it is doing and the way in which it is preparing evidence for the trials that are due to take place next year. As I have said, it is an impressive operation, but perhaps more resources need to be devoted to it. It has an outstanding head in Mrs. Barbara Mills, who is an excellent appointment. There is no doubt about the SFO's determination to get to grips with serious fraud. We should not underestimate its deterrent effect. The way in which it has dealt with Polly Peck, for example, will send a message to many other people who may be contemplating breaking the law. They will see that we really mean business about fraud, and that we mean to get to grips with it.
I commend what the Government have done, both in terms of the Financial Services Act and in combating fraud.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with much of what has just been said by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who is an adviser to FIMBRA. The mergers between the SROs are an efficient move, and the Serious Fraud Office is efficiently run by a woman. I have no difficulty with that at all. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot argue on the one hand that he can understand the frustration of FIMBRA members who do not want to be regulated, while listening to the tale of woe told by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), whether that relates to C. J. How, Hamilton House, Dunsdale Investment Group, Barlow Clowes or Levitt. We have a serious problem on our hands. Although there may be a need for parts of the system to bed down, there is also a need for the system to be adapted to respond more quickly, efficiently and directly to some of the problems that we are facing.
I congratulate all members of the Select Committee on what seems to have the general agreement of the House as being a strong and positive report, which has proved useful to hon. Members of all parties. In view of the time constraints, I shall not refer to the House of Fraser because the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and my hon. Friends have discussed it in detail. Looking back to our debate on the House of Fraser, we can see how —let us be honest—the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), hid behind the legal framework and the responsibilities of the Attorney-General. The Governor of the Bank of England is now hiding behind legal opinion. There is some similarity between those two examples in terms of trying to halt the truth and the facts coming out, and action being taken.
Much of the Select Committee report deals with insider dealing. The Government's response in their White Paper has been minimal although they have gone through a


process of consultation. I hope that if the Minister has the time, he will tell us some of the results of the consultation process. I should like to hear some evidence about what the Government will do in terms of insider dealing. That was well researched by the Select Committee and there is no doubt that problems still exist. The stock exchange "Quality of Markets Quarterly Review", summer 1990, outlines the extent of the problem. Of the 103 cases that the stock exchange referred to the Department of Trade and Industry, there have been 42 investigations, resulting in only nine convictions. It is worth pointing out that those convictions cover only the small fry. In the United States, where the markets are similar, the people at the centre of the trading are being caught, but it is a different story here.
The DTI's confidence to deal with insider dealing is still very low. The report of the accountancy firm Ernest Young states:
Over 90 per cent. of people have little or no confidence in the ability of the DTI to deal with fraud of just £10,000." That confidence increases as the amount of money involved increases, but it never gets higher than 60 per cent. of people feeling confident that the DTI will deal successfully with insider dealing.
We have stated our policy proposals on insider dealing. I am sure that the Minister is aware of them—

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): indicated assent.

Ms. Mowlam: Yes, but I have a copy of our proposals for the Minister if he has not seen them. We have gone into the matter in some detail. Like the Select Committee, we recommend a number of things such as the introduction of civil law sanctions—as well as criminal sanctions—against insider dealing. We want the criminal law—the Insider Dealing Act 1985—to be simplified and to deal with unpublished price-sensitive information. We do not want it to be a question of only the published price-sensitive information and of whether the authorised person—the tippee—should be named or the provisions should apply simply to an authorised source.
I agree completely with what the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said about non-executive directors and giving them an auditing function. That is a positive suggestion. However, he implied that that would contradict the auditors' statutory responsibility to report. I do not accept that. I should like to see the two auditing functions. We have recommended that auditors should have a statutory obligation to report suspected fraud in a company.
We have also made some suggestions about insider dealing and company fraud at the international level because much work could be done, especially with the United States and Japan and, to a certain degree, with Switzerland, with which we do not have even the mutual MOUs that we have at present with our European neighbours.
I am still disappointed, having read the White Paper, that the Government are not willing to have a centralised database. That should be a basic starting point, which should be expanded internationally as the markets move more globally. We would support such a proposal.
I shall concentrate my remaining time on the wonderful understatement on page 7 of the Select Committee's report:

Fraud within companies … appears to have increased.
That is indeed an understatement when one considers the frauds that have taken place since the enactment of the Financial Services Act 1986 and the publication of the Select Committee's report. I seem to have spent most of the short time that I have been doing this job dealing with fraud and responding to statements on fraud. I assure the Minister that I have not done so willingly. I would rather consider the relationship between the City and industry and what we can do to help our manufacturing industry. I would much rather spend my time looking at what we can do in relation to the City and Europe. I wish that I did not have to come to the House, as happened on 7 March in relation to the House of Fraser, to deal with fraud.
I remind the House of what another Minister said on 7 March—incidentally, Ministers seem to change as quickly as Government statements—when I asked him why the Government did not investigate the allegations in more depth and why they did not fulfil their responsibility to protect the public interest. I asked:
Will he insist that those lessons"—
I was referring to the lessons of the House of Fraser case—
are acted upon by the regulatory bodies"?—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 874.]
The Minister made absolutely no response to those questions and, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, the Government have done nothing since about the House of Fraser.
The hon. Member for Gloucester pointed out the similarities between the alleged fraud at Levitt and the case of Barlow Clowes. On 13 June 1988 the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), who was dealing with the matter, said:
I of course confirm that the interests of investors are our highest priority, and that we shall do all we can to safeguard them."—[Offical Report, 13 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 28.]
It will be interesting to find out what the Minister or his successors have done to ensure that investors are the highest priority and to safeguard their interests.
In October 1988 the next Minister said:
The Government have acted to correct those weaknesses in the Financial Services Act 1986, whose main provisions came into effect in April this year."—[Official Report, 20 October 1988; Vol. 138 c. 106.]
Clearly, if they had done so, the problems that we have faced since with Hamilton House, Dunsdale and Levitt would not have occurred. That suggests that we have had statement after statement from Ministers at the Dispatch Box talking about dealing with fraud and investor protection, but doing very little. When will the Minister make some specific points about company fraud and insider dealing?
The case of Levitt is a good example of fraud, which was related to the Select Committee. It has been mentioned several times. The Select Committee deals with fraud and what the Government's response should be. I shall understand if the Minister does not have time this evening but, in both the case of Levitt and other cases as the Select Committee report states, it would be useful and in the interests of both the broader public and investors if the Minister could answer some of our questions.
There is a great deal of confusion about whether the Department of Trade and Industry has set up an inquiry on Levitt. Some newspapers say yes and others no. When one phones the DTI it says, "No comment." It would be useful for the public to know what response the


Government have made, especially as FIMBRA was in Levitt back in October. One would have thought that even the DTI would have had time to make a response.
It would be useful if the Minister told us about the nature of the fraud, the amount of money involved and where the £21 million or £20 million has come from. If it is borrowed money, clearly whether that is a printable asset is called into question. The problems faced by investors may be even greater if that £20 million is already set against other assets.
In response to my earlier intervention, the Minister indicated from a sedentary position that it was not the case that the money was borrowed. If, as in the case of Barlow Clowes and C. J. How—which was raised this afternoon —compensation is needed, where will the money come from? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the money came from a supplementary estimate and £80 million came from industrial budgets for the regions, education and training, and research and innovation. That money went to compensate investors in the case of Barlow Clowes. When, on 19 December 1989, the Secretary of State told the House that the cash would be made available to pay compensation, he did not make it clear where it could come from. The budget headings that I mentioned were down 15 per cent. without taking inflation into account. We suggest that that is where the money came from.
It would also be useful if some of the other people involved in Levitt made statements about what is happening. There are several well-known directors. Mr Sebastian Coe, who hopes to join us in the House, is one. I am sure that he will not run a mile, or at least a quick mile, at the thought of making a statement. As the Select Committee report said, we need more information in the broader public interest. In the case of Levitt one hopes that other directors will come forward and take their responsibilities seriously. They should state the position as they see it.
My penultimate point about Levitt is that it is not simply a case of people having invested in Levitt. It seems that the number of small investors is small. The main investments were by four of the larger insurance companies and 70 per cent. of Mr. Levitt's own money was invested. However, there is anxiety about whether the money of the 18,000 investors who have insurance policies or left funds to Levitt to manage in a discretionary fashion is safe. That is the question that many people are asking.
I have here a large file of letters that I received from constituents about Barlow Clowes. It does not include letters that I received in my role as an Opposition spokesperson on trade and industry. I am worried that if the problems that the Levitt case will cause are as great as many people suggest, several Members of Parliament will receive many such letters from Levitt's investors. It is incumbent on the Minister to make the position clear to small investors who are worried about their future and the fact that they may come out with neither a life insurance policy nor the money that they paid into it. That is the anxiety of Opposition Members.
In the week of the electricity privatisation, when Ministers have encouraged wider share ownership, it would be useful if the Minister could make a statement about the success of the wider share ownership programme. The "Quality of Markets Quarterly Review" of the stock exchange shows that in 1981, not long after the Government came to power, 28·2 per cent. of the share of

United Kingdom equities was held by individuals. That has now fallen to 18 per cent. Does the Minister consider that the Government have been successful in promoting wider share ownership?
Again I congratulate the members of the Select Committee on producing a good report. I ask the Minister to allay some of the fears of many small investors who have life insurance policies with Levitt and people encouraged by the Government to move from SERPS into private pensions, on which Mr. Levitt took 50 per cent. up-front commission, who are worried that they may have no pension scheme. Those investors are worried and want reassurance from the Minister.
What have the Government done about investor protection, whether in the case of Levitt, Dunsdale, Hamilton House or Barlow Clowes? As both Conservative and Opposition Members have said today, the financial services system does not protect investors individually, it is costly to the industry and could cost us more as we go into Europe. It is a cumbersome, inefficient system which does not work in the interests of the people whom it set out to protect. I should appreciate a response from the Minister on that point.

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I shall begin by responding to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). There has been an arrest today in connection with the Levitt group. The police are making inquiries and are working with the Serious Fraud Office, which is investigating the whole matter. That is a sign that the regulatory authorities have moved swiftly and acted with purpose. The question of compensation may arise. As the hon. Lady is aware, most people invested through the company in the form of life insurance policies. They are advised to check with their life insurance company that the documents which they hold relate to a valid, current policy. If not, they should approach the liquidators direct because, of course, the group has been put into liquidation. If there proves to be a shortfall, the compensation scheme provided for under the Financial Services Act 1986 may be called upon. Decisions on that scheme are made by those who run it.
The hon. Member for Redcar and her colleagues seem to believe that they have a perfect mechanism for abolishing crime. Yet when they were in government for five years they did precious little to amend or strengthen the law on financial services even though they had every opportunity to do so. They certainly did not abolish malpractice or crime during that period. Now they sit like second-rate vultures about to swoop on any company in difficulties where they think that they might pick up a scrap of political advantage. That does nothing to help the City of London or to ensure that it retains and improves its position as one of the world's big three financial markets. Its reputation is high and the Government's actions are designed to improve and strengthen that reputation.
The hon. Member for Redcar asked me about insider dealing. We have been consulting on it and are examining the replies to determine what type of legislation will be required to implement the directive and respond adequately to the consultation.
We are improving our record on tackling insider dealing compared with that of our neighbours and partners and compared with experience. The House might


like to know that Italy and Germany still have no operational insider dealing laws. France, which has an insider dealing law, has brought two cases to a successful conclusion since 1983. We have had longer experience of insider dealing law. Between 1980 and 1985 some five cases resulted in three convictions. In the past two years, the pace has quickened with 10 cases producing five convictions. The stock exchange is also bringing cases under its own aegis. Under the Labour Government there were no cases and no convictions because they did not think it sufficiently important to introduce a law to make insider dealing a criminal offence. That shows the difference between the two sides in how seriously we take the issue and the action that we adopt to make progress towards a clean, open and honest City.
Those actions have been bolstered in other areas. In the first six months of this year, following DTI reports, there were 26 winding-up petitions and 12 defendants were convicted on criminal charges other than insider dealing. That illustrates that we are serious about rooting out crime. We shall continue to do so with all the forces at our disposal.

Ms. Mowlam: The Minister is factually incorrect. Cases of insider dealing were dealt with on the stock exchange before 1980. Since 1970 Germany has had a strict code on irregular dealing on its stock exchange.

Mr. Redwood: There were no cases of criminal law prosecutions for insider dealing because there was no such law and the hon. Lady well knows it. She is trying a silly dodge to cover a glaring mistake in the Labour Government's conduct when they were in office in the mid-1970s.
In the first half of this financial year 111 cases were accepted by my Department for confidential Companies Act investigation. That is a major increase on the 68 for the same period in the previous year. It shows that we are taking to heart our duties to follow up those cases that seem suspect and to initiate inquiries where we are concerned about what is going on. In that period we completed 83 investigations compared with 62 in the same period the previous year. Those confidential inquiries often result in matters that need following up either by bringing criminal charges or, more normally, by tough regulatory action. Over half the cases that we investigate lead to such courses of action as a result of findings.
I, too, am grateful to the Select Committee for its hard work in producing this valuable report. We have responded at some length in the published documents before the House, so I shall confine my remarks to those made during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), who conducted the inquiry with such skill, asked about the pursuit of costs arising from investigation and prosecution work. The Government intend to pursue costs wherever possible and the Companies Act 1989 included proposals to facilitate that process. The award of costs lies with the courts. It is for the prosecutors to make the best possible case where people or even companies are found guilty of malpractice. I promise my hon. Friend that we shall pursue costs wherever possible. I agree that where

malpractice and criminal deeds are proven, it is a good idea to recoup some or all of the costs of the prosecutions and investigations through the courts.
My hon. Friend asked me about the time taken. I agree that it is important to conduct investigations with all due speed, but they must also be thorough and fair, and to ensure that they start on time if the matter is time sensitive. There have been dramatic improvements on the not very satisfactory position of some years ago. For example, between 1980 and 1984 investigations involving outside inspectors took on average five years and one month. Between 1985 and 1988 the figure came down to one year and eight months. We aim to improve on that again, as my hon. Friend would wish.
Timetables are common practice when we consider how to proceed with these investigations. The Committee thinks that we can work more swiftly on insider dealing. The average time to make appointments is four weeks. We set targets and no target has been set for longer than six months to complete an inquiry. Obviously, we cannot guarantee that every inquiry will be completed within six months because sometimes there are difficulties in pursuing evidence which take time to surmount.
Several hon. Members asked about the House of Fraser. I am glad that my hon. Friend praised the Securities Association for doing a good job pursuing its regulatory responsibilities with the banks and advisers concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in particular asked about the Bank of England's action. That is a matter for the bank and it can be raised with the Treasury. I shall ensure that the comments made by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are relayed to the Governor of the Bank of England so that he can see the substance of this debate.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that our aim is that London should be the key financial centre in western Europe and one of the big three financial centres in the world. The Government's actions are geared to achieve that. We have an important role to play.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) said, most fairly, that most people in the City were honest. That was a welcome contribution with which I entirely agree. He made a plea for faster investigations and asked for tougher sentences. He will see on reflection that the Government's legislation allows considerable scope for tough sentences to be meted out by the courts. It is not for me, a Minister of the Crown, to go into the individual sentencing decisions of individual courts. Those with an interest in these matters in our legal system will see his comments and his reasons for wanting tougher sentences.
The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) is keen for my Department to monitor regulators. That is exactly what the Secretary of State and I do. We have regular discussions with the Securities and Investments Board which is, indeed, charged with the task of overseeing the work of the self-regulatory organisations. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that we shall continue to monitor and examine carefully the progress that is being made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) asked about the compensation scheme. It has an annual ceiling of £100 million which has never been exceeded. It was set as a generous ceiling in the hope that


it would never be exceeded. His hypothetical point is not relevant to providing compensation to investors who have lost out in past events.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) stated that compliance was the main point. I agree that compliance work is the most important of all. Much of the rule and law making has been achieved. It is important that those who undertake misdeeds and malpractice are pursued. As I have tried to demonstrate in the short time this evening, that is exactly what is happening on a scale unlike anything that went before. There has been a big escalation in the number of cases being brought and in vigilance. I do not believe that wickedness has increased greatly since the 1960s and 1970s, so it shows that regulators are taking a much firmer line and finding out more of the misdeeds.
I must conclude now because of time. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for their kind remarks about some features of the Financial Services Act system. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that directors must live up to their responsibilities. Those responsibilities are clear in company law, but I shall do everything in my power to ensure that directors live up to them and I shall pursue directors if they do not.

Mr. Warren: Many hon. Members have asked me not to withdraw my motion and to debate it again after 11.30 pm. However, I now feel obliged to withdraw it. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

Fisheries

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and her hon. Friends.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 11th December 1990 relating to Total Allowable Catches and Quotas for 1991 and its Supplementary explanatory memorandum of 12th December 1990, the proposals described in its un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 11th December 1990, relating to the reciprocal fisheries Agreement between the Community and Norway for 1991, European Community Document No. 9898/90 on guide prices for fishery products for 1991, and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1991 consistent with the requirement for conservation of fishing stocks.
We shall spend much of this debate discussing the fishing industry and its opportunities next year. Inevitably, our discussion will be based on scientific facts and legal and administrative arrangements. However, I should like us to start by remembering those who died yesterday in the terrible accident on the Premier off the Shetlands.
It behoves us to remember how difficult and dangerous the job of the fisherman is. Sometimes, people who live in comfortable homes and do comfortable jobs forget how difficult it is for those who work in the wind and weather—not only fishermen, but farmers. We are all aware of the farmer who went out to look after his sheep at the weekend and was left for many hours in the snow. People often forget how much fishermen and farmers give to their jobs.
The loss of the Premier serves to remind us not only of fishermen, but of the effect of their loss on the small, close-knit communities in which they live. Often the crews of such vessels are related to almost everyone living in a number of houses in small communities. I am sure that those who have been affected on this occasion have the sympathy of not only those who live some distance away, but of the other fishing communities of the United Kingdom. Even though there are occasional disagree-ments between such communities, they come together in understanding the great dangers in which they operate.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. No doubt he will be aware that today the people of Carradale buried their dead and that that community, together with those of Burghead, Lossiemouth and Hopeman, are united in their concern, as are all our maritime communities.
Has there been any communication between the Ministry and the Department of Transport about the possibility of raising the Premier from the waters in which it now lies—I understand that they are 400 ft deep? It is possible, that some, if not all, of the bodies of my constituents are still on that vessel. Obviously, it is a matter of great concern to my constituents and to the families of the dead that the bodies should be returned, if possible.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also join me in asking representatives of the press and media to allow the families


in my constituency to come to grips with their grief in privacy? All of us share the deep sense of grief and loss felt by the affected communities.

Mr. Gummer: I do not always agree with the hon. Lady, but her latter request is of particular value. It is of great sadness to many of us that grief is commercialised in such circumstances. I hope that the press will treat the bereaved and the affected communities with the respect that they deserve in such sad circumstances. I hope that they will be left to grieve as they would wish rather than in full view of the rest of the country.
It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will reply to this debate, to decide whether the Premier can be raised. I want it to be known, however, that the entire United Kingdom is extremely concerned when one of its ships is lost in such a way.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that the House has not had a sustained debate on the safety of fishing vessels since Sir Albert McQuarrie put through his private Member's Bill on safety at sea?
Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Secretary of State for Transport the belief shared by many hon. Members that we should have an early, critical scrutiny of safety matters as they affect our fishermen in their hazardous work?

Mr. Gummer: I should be happy to consider that matter with my right hon. and learned Friend. His previous responsibilities will enable him to look at the matter from both sides. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that there has rarely been division in the House about the safety of such vessels. I remember the all-party support that was commanded by Sir Albert McQuarrie's Bill. That Bill was worth while and has done a great deal of good, if only by highlighting the serious dangers that are present in the fishing industry.

Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way so often at this early stage in our proceedings.
I reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Today, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and I received a reply to a written answer in which we asked that the new communication system to be adopted in the Clyde, which is a great step forward, be extended to other parts of the United Kingdom so that there is some liaison between submarine commanders and fishing boats. We were told that we must wait to see how the system works before it is extended. We should like to debate that issue further.
I also received a reply about transponders being fitted to fishing nets to enable submarines to detect them more easily—an idea that we have advanced for some time. The Ministry of Defence, however, said that no decision has been made about who will pay for them.
Following the sinking of the Antares, the issues raised in those questions are extremely urgent and a specific debate would give Lis the opportunity to discuss them further. I realise that the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence have prime responsibility for such

matters, but the Minister has a general concern about the fishing industry and its safety. [HON. MEMBERS: "Briefly"] I hope that he will take up this matter on our behalf.

Mr. Gummer: I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you enabled the hon. Gentleman to continue his question. He is perfectly right that, although such matters are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the territorial Departments also believe that they have a particular responsibility and concern. Although we do not have control of the legislation, it is the fishermen for whom we are responsible who are most affected by it.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary support of the changes introduced by the Ministry of Defence, but I do not believe there is anything wrong in assessing how that system works before it is extended. I accept, however, that the hon. Gentleman might like to discuss it at greater length and I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friends.
The Government are sponsoring the research on transponders and I am pleased about that. The work is encouraging and we must consider how to implement the research if it proves to continue to be so encouraging. If a suitable occasion arose, my right hon. Friends and I would be happy to debate this matter. There is no bar on such a discussion and it is a matter for the Leader of the House and others.
I do not want to understate the importance of what I have already said as it provides the background against which we can discuss other matters. Tonight, however, we are specifically discussing the fishing opportunities for next year. I apologise to the House that no proposals were possible before mid-November when the latest scientific advice became available following the essential autumn surveys. We also had to conclude the third-country talks to arrive at proposals on key stocks in the North sea.
I know that the House would prefer to have such information early enough to digest it more effectively. As the Minister mainly concerned, I, too, would like to have the information earlier to prepare for the long debates that take place in the European Community. But that is not possible and I comment on my own frustration about it.
The consultations with Norway have gone through three rounds. They were completed late on 7 December, after the Commission's main total allowable catch and quota proposals were released that afternoon. Hon. Members will see the tight timetable, and I thank the Leader of the House for arranging the time for this debate, so soon after the point at which we were able to tell him that the information would be available.
We did our best to give firm figures and estimates, where necessary, in the main explanatory memorandum of 11 December. We supplied the supplementary document 24 hours later, and that completed the proposals. The House now has before it the full proposals coming before the Fisheries Council. I am grateful to the authorities of the House—the Select Committee on European Legislation and the spokesmen for the other parties—for their understanding and rapid consideration of the proposals. It is important that we have the views of the House before the Council of Fisheries Ministers meets on 19 December.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The fishermen in my constituency tell me that the failure of the Government to introduce a proper decommissioning scheme has led to the reductions. Is that true?

Mr. Gummer: I do not know whether they say that to the hon. Gentleman. If they do, even those who want a decommissioning scheme would not support that argument. It cannot be true; there is no way in which the two things could hang together in that way. There is an argument for a decommissioning scheme, although I do not accept it. But it is not based on those premises.
We shall reach a point at which we can talk about decommissioning schemes—I shall not avoid that—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that we conduct our debates in the House against a background in which the real decisions are bound to be made in the European Community, because fishing is done by the whole Community and the shares of the fishing quotas are worked out among us. In those circumstances, particular TACs and quotas—fishing opportunities—are based on an assessment of the scientific advice. The question of decommissioning or non-decommissioning is totally different. When we discuss it the hon. Member for Workington may wish to intervene again, and I shall be happy to give way to him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a debate of great concern to many people. We should take matters in order and, when I come to the point about which he wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him.
I wish, first, to deal with catches and catch returns. There was considerable gloom at the start of the year. The severe cuts in North sea cod and haddock quotas, which are of the greatest economic importance to our industry, were a severe blow. We also had to introduce measures to reduce effort on haddock. It is interesting to note that the majority of vessels took up not the option to use more selective gear but the option of being restricted to 92 fishing days. That is an important point in terms of trying to decide how best to deal with conservation measures.
It is worth remembering that, of the quotas of most interest to our industry, while 17 decreased in 1990, 13 were increased and 18 remained the same.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman said that many had taken up the option of 92 fishing days. Does he agree that that was a scheme for chosen days, not for consecutive days of the sort that is now under discussion? The idea of expecting people to fish for 10 fixed consecutive days represents a danger, with fishermen having to make up the number in the days following. That could lead to fishermen feeling obliged to go out to sea on the nominated days, even though the weather may be bad and the conditions dangerous.

Mr. Gummer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is a different scheme. I hope that he will agree that one problem with the choice of days is the question of effective policing. He will agree that in his part of the world there is considerable feeling among fishermen that other fishermen have perhaps not kept to the rules with quite the assiduity that he would expect.
During this year, our distant water fleet has taken the reduced quotas north of Norway, but poor catch rates in Greenland, unlike the good catches of last year, are

making it impossible to take up those quotas fully—reminding us again that the artificiality of quotas is often clearly shown up by the nature of the flow of the water and the presence of the fish.
Nearer home, there has been a heavier take-up of quotas, requiring considerable management to spread the quota through the year. There have also been considerable management difficulties arising from unusual catching patterns declared by fishermen, particularly of cod and haddock.

Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman referred to fishing in northern, particularly Greenland, waters. One reason for the poor take-up has been the exceptionally severe weather with the presence of ice. The two together have made matters extremely difficult for our fishermen. I appeal to the Minister—I have made this appeal before —to accept that fishermen should be in Greenland waters only if they have experience of fishing in the area. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman should try to persuade others without the necessary experience not to go into those waters.

Mr. Gummer: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. People must have track records to fish in those areas. It is difficult to be too prescriptive about such matters, but when it comes to fishing in difficult areas —I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing a difficult area, in which the reasons for not catching have included severe weather and ice—some experience of those areas is important. But how one gets experience if one is closed from an area until one has such experience is a difficulty that all must face.
We must accept that, even in unhappy situations where patterns do not appear to fit what the expectations were in the returns, fish is in considerable demand and prices have risen greatly. Up to the end of September, the value of all landings increased by 10 per cent., despite a 4 per cent. drop in volume. That is a remarkable fact. Within that total, I highlight white fish, such as cod, haddock and sole, for which there has been an increase in total value of 13 per cent., despite a fall in landings of 13 per cent. That has meant that fishermen have had a significant increase in return, over the increase in inflation. Of course, the customer has had to pay more because there has been less to buy.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister makes a point that we have heard often from the Government—that the revenue in terms of landings has been above that of last year. Does he accept that the costs of the industry have increased dramatically, particularly the costs of interest and boats, because of the high base rate in the last year, and, in recent months, the dramatic doubling in fuel costs because of the increase in the price of oil? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be more sensible to have income figures for the industry, as opposed to just the revenue figures which the Minister is quoting?

Mr. Gummer: The industry has had consistently, in 10 of the past 11 years, an increase in its returns over and above the rate of inflation. The hon. Gentleman cannot count the rate of inflation twice. The rate of inflation is created by a number of elements and there are many


industries in which the contribution, for example, of fuel costs as a proportion of its total costs is considerably greater than that of the fishing industry.

Mr. Salmond: Really!

Mr. Gummer: A simple example is the cement industry, where fuel represents 50 per cent. of its costs. It is significantly less in the fishing industry. It does not help the hon. Gentleman's case to suggest other than that. Although the fishing industry has suffered from the reduction in the amount that it can take, it has had the advantage of an increase in the price of what it has sold. Many other industries, not least farming, would envy that. We should always start with facts rather than with embroidering them.
I am surprised by the amendment tabled by the Scottish National party, because it does not seem to square with the arguments advanced by that party in the previous debate on a similar subject in this House. In that debate, the official Opposition were careful to agree that if we took the necessary tough measures for conservation they would have to have a real impact on fishermen. But the hon. Member for Moray and her hon. Friends suggested that conservation measures could be taken without their causing difficulties for the people on whom they were imposed.
The same is happening today. There is always the idea that there is a soft option, and it is always the Scottish National party which produces it. The House is tired of the attempt to buy votes today from the livelihoods of fishermen tomorrow—yet that is what the amendment suggests. It suggests conservation measures that do not restrict efforts to catch fish today while hiding from people the fact that their sons and daughters will not have fish tomorrow and that their communities will be destroyed. Both sides of the House should oppose this easy option advanced by the Scottish Nationalists. The rest of us, who are responsible for these matters, have to tell the fishing industry that, to protect jobs in the future, it will have to take some fairly tough measures now.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my right hon. Friend take the view that I do, that sea fishery committees paid for by local community charge payers, such as the Devon and Cornwall sea fishery committee, are of great assistance to him, bearing in mind that it is difficult to have committees of fishermen, who are at sea so much of the time, communicating to my right hon. Friend's Department local realities and problems? Will he also say a word about the cost of enforcement? In many people's view, the action of enforcement should be by the nation state, but the cost of it should fall on the Community budget.

Mr. Gummer: I agree that the sea fishery committees are of great importance. We are discussing whether we could extend their remit so that they can carry out an even more useful job in the future. The Scots do not have the same system north of the border. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would like to look at what we do south of the border. Both parts of the United Kingdom can learn from the other. I am sure that we could learn some things from Scotland, but our system works very well.
The United Kingdom has been responsible for setting up a European Community police force for fishing and for extending it. The balance is probably about right, but I am happy to re-examine it. Some countries that used to be less than careful about obeying the law are beginning to be much more careful because of the international force for which the United Kingdom is responsible.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Far be it from me to defend the SNP, with whose members I have little in common, but the Minister makes a great mistake if he seeks to turn this serious debate into a party political broadcast—or if he tries to divide us on grounds of party.
Tough measures to reduce the fishing effort must be taken, as we all agree. But if the Minister reads the amendment he will see that it suggests that it is time we stopped the idea—the hallmark of this Government—that the only way to make progress or bring about change is to inflict pain on people. It appears that one can effect change only by suffering pain—a sort of masochism.

Mr. Foulkes: It is sadism.

Mr. Hughes: Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is unanimity among Opposition parties —many Conservative Members agree—about the necessity for a proper decommissioning scheme, and that is how I read the amendment. If that is indeed what it says, I shall support it in the Lobby.

Mr. Gummer: Nowhere does the amendment mention decommissioning —

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What about structural support?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady can talk in vague terms of structural support, but I am talking about the amendment, in which there are seven lines—all of them meant to divide —before we reach the words "structural support".
I am making the same point as did the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). There is no need for the House to be divided on the main issues that we have to fight in the European Community.

Mr. James Wallace: Square mesh panels?

Mr. Gummer: I will come to them in a moment.
Once again the Scottish National party is trying to give fishermen the impression that it has a policy different from those of the Opposition or of the Government, obtainable in Europe and therefore viable in circumstances that might attract a vote or two for the SNP. That is what I object to. The House should try to produce a policy which we can fight in the Community and which will benefit all fishermen in the United Kingdom. To do that we must ensure that we table words of agreement.
Let us examine the amendment in that light. It
demands that the Government … pursue a more vigorous policy in the fisheries negotiations".
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I could hardly be more vigorous than we are. Anyone in the Community would confirm that for five years the United Kingdom has exhibited more vigour than any other country, which explains why we have had a better deal than any other country.
The amendment continues
by insisting on implementation of the technical conservation measures on square mesh panels agreed by fishermen".


We cannot insist on those things. We have to negotiate them and get them agreed by our neighbours in the Community, which is precisely what we are doing. We are fighting for them in Europe. It is about time that the party that claims to be the European party in Scotland learnt that we do not insist —

Mr. Robert Hughes: SNP Members have changed their minds about that—the Minister is out of date.

Mr. Gummer: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman back on my side. I am an enthusiast for the European Community, but I do not go round insisting on things. We must negotiate.
The amendment continues,
rejecting the discriminatory and unworkable proposals on limitation of effort proposed by the EC Claims
We have already done that, so I do not see the need for the amendment. The case for doing that has been forcefully presented by the United Kingdom Government, with the support of one or two other countries, and we are likely to enjoy some success on the issue.
It would be easier if the European Community found that both sides of this House were united, as are the other countries with which we are negotiating —

Mr. Wallace: I refer to the point about technical limitations. Is the Minister saying that the United Kingdom Government will resist the Commission's proposal for a ban on fishing on 10 consecutive days in a month?

Mr. Gummer: That is not a technical, conservation measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is not: it is a quota management device. I see that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, a former Opposition fisheries spokesman, agrees with me. If Members of Opposition parties cannot even get the technicalities right in a debate of this sort, it suggests that the Scottish Nationalists are much more interested in politics than they are in fishermen —

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I have made a serious claim and I shall continue to make it once I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, the successor to Sir Albert McQuarrie.

Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister for finally giving way. He is digging rather a deep hole for himself. Thus far he has managed to unite the Opposition against him. He says that the amendment will not force conservation measures, but it supports technical conservation measures, a clampdown on industrial fishing and participation in the Community's structure policy. Every hon. Member except the Minister seems to know that that policy means decommissioning and lay-up schemes. How can the Minister defend his position in the face of the words in the amendment? In view of what the amendment says, why does not the Minister accept it?

Mr. Gummer: No doubt the amendment suggests that we are not supporting such things. The hon. Gentleman says in his document that we should move to the elimination of industrial fishing. That is the policy of the Government and has already been put forward. If the amendment contained only that one suggestion I would be happy to say that it was in line with our policy. I have always been opposed to industrial fishing and I have constantly battled against it. The only change in the

situation is that many of the species that used to be fished industrially, such as horse mackerel, are now fished for human consumption. There has been a significant change in that respect. It is plain that the Opposition do not understand that. It is a technical matter for the fishing industry. It does not help our battle in the European Community when amendments seek to divide us rather than to support a United Kingdom policy.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I have given way enough. If I give way any more there will be complaints that I have taken up too much time.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, because I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Quota levels, however, are not the only preoccupation. Much of this year has been devoted by the Government and the industry to pressing for improved technical conservation measures. I very much regret that a difference of opinion between most member states and the Commission about the degree of change needed prevented the November Fisheries Council from agreeing on new measures designed particularly to help cod and haddock.
I am a great believer in conservation, but conservation does not mean producing a net that is incapable of catching fish—a proposition put forward by the Commission. We put a net behind a boat and pulled it and caught, I think, eight fish. We cannot agree to conservation measures that are not based upon conserving the jobs of fishermen as well as stocks of fish. There must be a balance and some of the Commission's propositions appear to be devised by people who do not know one end of a net or one kind of fish from another. It will be most important in the near future to secure improved selectivity of nets so that the wasteful catch of juvenile fish can be reduced to a minimum. If we are to do that, we cannot merely accept the proposals put forward by some fishermen because they will not secure that objective. We must consider square mesh nets with meshes that are larger than 80 mm so that the correct balance can be achieved. We are asking for change but it must be realistic. We must strike a balance between conservation of stocks and conservation of the industry. If stocks are improperly looked after, some species will be preyed upon by others.

Mr. Foulkes: I do not propose to raise the temperature now that it has, thankfully, been lowered. The Minister talks about conservation measures. He knows that precautionary total allowable catches apply to plaice, monkfish and megrim. There is no scientific evidence for those restrictions and no conservation is involved. The Minister gave a clear pledge that the Government would fight hard to increase the allowable catches of new species of fish being brought to the Market. Will he assure us that he will press for substantial increases in the catch of those three species?

Mr. Gummer: I give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance that where there is no scientific reason or no real concern we will press for the largest possible allowable catch. The issues must be discussed one by one. He will agree that sometimes a precautionary TAC is sensible when, in view of the evidence, that seems the best thing to do and it appears that it would be dangerous to move too


far. Perhaps he also agrees that in the absence of full scientific advice it is better to take precautions than to run the risk of exhausting future stocks. As I said, the balance is important and where it is safe to do so we shall fight hard to increase catches.

Dr. Godman: The Minister said that he saw me nodding in agreement when he spoke about some fishermen not fishing for 10 consecutive days. He spoke about a system of quota management. We are all concerned about safety and this is a serious matter. Presumably fishermen would not fish for six days because the 10-day period would contain two weekends. Some fishermen may stay out in bad weather and because of the difficulties that they face they may be prepared to shoot their gear in unfavourable conditions. That is why I disagree emphatically and entirely with that 10-day proposal.

Mr. Gummer: I thought that I had made myself clear, but if I did not I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He nodded in agreement that this was a matter of quota management rather than technical conservation. That is important because those are the terms under which we negotiate and seek to get an answer. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's fears. We are looking for the maximum flexibility consistent with proper management and we shall take into account the hon. Gentleman's points.
In the case of the three species mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), we think that the precautionary total allowable catches are too low and we shall fight for a considerable increase.
The document refers to structural support and that euphemism, chosen by the hon. Member for Moray and her hon. Friends, means decommissioning. I shall now turn to fleet rationalisation. Since 1988 we have not permitted licence transfers which would increase the tonnage or horse power of our fleet. Earlier this year we extended licensing to virtually all stocks and introduced capacity aggregation. Capacity aggregation brought a little more flexibility into our licence transfer rules, but on condition that any amalgamation of licences was accompanied by a 10 per cent. reduction in fishing capacity.
Capacity aggregation also gives members of producer organisations new opportunities to rationalise the exploitation of their producer organisations' sectoral allocations. We also circulated to the industry proposals for entitlement aggregation to provide added opportunities for fleet rationalisation. We are reviewing the situation in the light of the industry's comments.
However, I emphasise that decomissioning is not the way to reduce the pressure on fish stocks and I shall try to explain why I think that that is not the case.
A case can be advanced to show that it would be nice for a considerable amount of extra money to go to the fishing industry in this way. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that case, but it is not reasonable to say that it is a sensible way to reduce pressure on stocks. It will put more money into the industry, but it will not do the job.
Even a limited decommissioning scheme would cost many millions of pounds. We could spend a great deal of money reducing the size of the fleet and make very little difference to the pressure on the stocks. If we remove

tonnage from the fishing fleet, the remaining tonnage can simply fish harder so that the total effort against the stocks is not reduced. No doubt one could try to reduce that risk by targeting a decommissioning scheme at the most effective vessels, but there would still be the likelihood of decommissioning funds being recycled so that the fishing effort did not really decrease. It would be strange to use taxpayers' money in an effort to remove from our fleet the most effective vessels.
I cannot help but feel that those who continue to argue for a decommissioning scheme simply want taxpayers' money for the industry regardless of whether that expenditure will achieve worthwhile objectives. I hope that the industry will accept that a decommissioning scheme simply will not provide value for money. It must start thinking constructively about the sort of ideas that we have put before it, and I hope that at least some producer organisations will encourage their members to take advantage of the opportunities already provided by capacity aggregation.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the Minister understand that capacity aggregation would open up the market for predators who would take over the small family businesses which are so important to many of our communities? Secondly, why is it that, apart from Ireland, the United Kingdom is the only country in the EC that has not introduced a decommissioning scheme? Everybody else is further down that route because they recognise that it is an important part of fisheries policy.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady cannot argue that aggregation would somehow have that effect, but decommissioning would not. Does she not think that small businesses would go in for the decommissioning scheme, and that it would not have the same effect? The hon. Lady cannot invent a system which does not mean that those who want to leave will take the money and cease to use their boats. If the hon. Lady really meant that, she would be against not only aggregation but decommissioning. As for her interesting comment that, because the rest of the Community chooses to do this, they must be right and we must be wrong, that avoids the argument. Only three countries are hitting their multi-annual guidance programme targets. The hon. Lady cannot deny that, if there were a decommissioning scheme, people would put their least effective boats in to get the money and keep their most effective boats for fishing. That will happen and, as sure as eggs is eggs, immediately afterwards the House of Commons would say that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had once again wasted taxpayers' money by buying out boats that were not fishing and leaving the other boats to do the fishing.

Mr. David Porter: Does not my right hon. Friend understand that the British taxpayer is contributing to the other schemes through our contributions to the EC, and that the British taxpayer would like some of that money back here?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must recognise that the Fontainebleau agreement means that if we extended the scheme to the United Kingdom, 70 per cent. would be paid by the EC, but we would then pay 70 per cent. of that 70 per cent. He is saying that to obtain a tiny amount of money we should do something which is wasteful and I am not prepared to do that. I am not prepared to pay 30 per


cent. of taxpayers' money to start with, and 70 per cent. of that which remains, to pretend that we are doing something useful. I am prepared to stand up and say clearly that I want to spend taxpayers' money usefully, in a way which will stand up under any investigation, and I do not believe that this will.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I must get on. [Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot say that I have not given way again and again.
In examining the scientific advice on catchable quantities for next year, we must remember that we are dealing with a naturally renewable resource. It is important to remember that fishing is a hunting industry. To ensure that stocks are renewable, catches need to be managed. Managers cannot do anything about runs of poor year classes, such as we have seen for cod and haddock in the North sea, but we must try to control catches in relation to stocks.
The Government have a clear record on conservation. Fishing is no different from any other of man's industries using natural resources. We must pay attention to conservation. The Commission has taken a strict view of the scientific advice and is looking for considerable changes this year to shorten the time in which the stocks recover to better levels. We must face the fact that most stocks in Community waters have been heavily fished. This is reflected in the proposal. Among those of interest to the United Kingdom this year, we have proposals suggesting reductions in 23 quotas, proposed increases for nine and no change for 16. We must stay in line with scientific advice, but where it is possible we must temper conservation of the fish with conservation of the fishermen. That is why I answered the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley as I did.
Many of the present low catches are blamed on the TAC system itself. It is said to have failed. That is not right. A constant theme in the scientific advice is that levels of fishing have been higher than recommended TACs, whether illegal and undeclared, or higher discards than estimated. It is a fact that Ministers have been setting TACs within the levels that scientists have advised are biologically sound, but some fishermen conspire to undermine the system by misreporting, excessive discarding, or perhaps not fully declaring their catches.
Therefore, we need compliance with fishing recommendations and good catch data. We must remember that TACs provide a framework within which to manage fisheries, both in overall terms and between fishing fleets. Technical conservation measures are important to control the quality and type of fish caught, but they alone cannot achieve successful management of the stock.
That is an issue which divides hon. Members in some parts of the House from others, but it is important because of the problems that have occurred, particularly in Scotland this year, with the way in which various catches have been reported. It is no good pretending that a system is acceptable to fishermen if some parts of the country believe that other parts have said that they caught fish where they did not. We cannot hide from that. Nor will it be possible to explain to fishermen that we should take

unusual reporting years into account when it comes to making arrangements elsewhere. It cannot be done because that position cannot be defended elsewhere.
I recognise that the outlook for 1991 is difficult, but it will be more difficult if we cannot get on top of such activity. Our key objective must be to obtain the highest level of quotas compatible with scientific advice and to maximise opportunities for United Kingdom fishermen. We must also aim to ensure parity of treatment throughout the Community where measures are taken to deal with particular stocks.
Secondly, we will of course invoke the Hague preference where necessary. That is likely to be necessary in the North sea for haddock and cod, and on the west coast for whiting and saithe. In the Irish sea, the Hague preference works in favour of the Irish Republic for cod, plaice and whiting.
Obviously, a balance must be struck, but we must defend our communities that depend heavily on fishing. I regret that the Commission's proposals this year contain no adjustment for the preference. I must warn the House that some member states disagree with the interpretation that the Hague preference applies. They consider that it has already been taken into account in the national allocations. We shall have to fight that extremely hard.
Thirdly, we need to secure again the flexibility to take western mackerel stock east of 4 deg. west. The substantially changed migration pattern of that stock, which now spends longer in the Norwegian exclusive zone, caused considerable difficulties between the EC and Norway in establishing a mutually acceptable arrangement for the proportion of that stock which might be taken. We are pleased that the EC-Norway agreement, as initiallised, provides for the Community to implement the flexibility if it chooses to do so. I intend to press that it does so choose.
Fourthly, we shall seek a sensible allocation of the horse mackerel TACs, particularly in the western zone, to reflect the increasing fishery for human consumption purposes to which I referred earlier. In our view, that should be given priority over the former industrial fishery. I repeat what I have always said in the House, that I do not believe in industrial fishery ever taking priority or being acceptable where there is any danger to the stock.
Fifthly, on the measures to control effort on cod and haddock in the North sea and the west of Scotland, we must accept that something needs to be done. This year's proposal is positive in that it applies to all member states concerned. We recognise that the measures as proposed by the Commission would be painful for some vessels, but at the same time recovery will not be possible without serious action. TACs are essential as a ceiling, but to keep within that ceiling we need to reduce discards to prevent misreporting and so keep catches to TAC levels. Tine Council will also be considering again proposals to improve technical conservation.
Once again, we shall have a tough time to protect the interests of the industry in our discussions. Those interests are not just about fishing this year, but about ensuring that we can fish next year and the years to come. They are not just about providing opportunities in fishing for some parts of the United Kingdom; they are also about providing opportunities for all parts of the United Kingdom. They are about trying to ensure not just that the British fishing industry has reasonable access to fishing grounds, but that we have fair access to fishing grounds.
Above all, they are about ensuring that the rules by which we have to live and upon which our future depends are equally applied, not only between the countries of the EC but between different parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I congratulate the Minister on giving the House an opportunity to debate before he goes into conference next week these important proposals and their likely effect on the United Kingdom fishing industry.
I offer my sincere condolences, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), whose constituency suffered the tragic loss of the fishing vessel Premier. As she will know, a number of hon. Members represent Humberside constituencies, and I myself have lived in Humberside my whole adult life and appreciate full well the impact that the loss of a fishing boat has on a close-knit community and how it affects the many people who knew those who served on it and their families.
My party accepts that we must develop our fisheries as a sustainable resource, and in doing so we must be guided by the best scientific evidence available. However, I am concerned that some of the scientific advice behind the proposals is imprecise. Certain quotas appear to be based on assumptions, and I understand that the scientists themselves have experienced difficulty in backing up their figures with hard evidence—as one might expect in certain instances.
I am concerned also that the recommendation concerning Irish sea cod, for which a massive cut of 61 per cent. in the total allowable catch is suggested, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the current situation in Irish sea fisheries. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to the Commission that there has been a switch of effort there to hake, particularly in the spring fishery—which is the peak time for cod. It may be that that has not been taken into account in the scientists' figures.
We all know what happened in area VII this year in terms of deliberate misreporting, and I am worried in case those inaccurate figures have been used in the calculations. I am concerned too about the further North sea cuts that are proposed. I acknowledge that some TACs will remain the same, and that there have been some small increases —particularly in respect of whiting. Nevertheless, given this year's drastic cuts in the existing quotas, does not the Minister acknowledge the importance of at least trying both to maintain the status quo and, where scientific evidence permits, to secure the best possible deal for raised quotas where fishery can be sustained?
Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that in our previous fishery debate we discussed the fact that whiting was to be allowed to be taken in greater numbers because it is a target species for industrial fisheries. I find it curious that, while such an increase is to be permitted in the North sea, there is to be a decrease in the Irish sea. If whiting is considered to be such a ferocious predator of other fish stocks, I cannot understand the logic of increasing the catch in the North sea but decreasing it in the Irish sea. I presume that the whiting in both seas share the same prey and do not have different diets simply because they are of a different size in different seas, and that whiting in the

North sea are not somehow more dangerous than those elsewhere. That is the differentiation that makes people suspicious about the calculations.
Does the Minister agree that the Hague preference is a blunt instrument? I noted and appreciate his comments, but we should all prefer reasonable quotas and TACs, rather than see quotas cut back to a level at which the Hague preference must be implemented. I acknowledge also the Minister's comment that in certain cases that provision would benefit the Irish Republic at the expense of United Kingdom fishing fleets.
The proposed cuts in channel flat fish and cod TACs are also worrying. I recently spoke to fishermen in Hastings and Rye about the problems that they have, which very much mirror those of fishermen around the coast—whether north, south, east or west. I note that there could be quota swaps with the Netherlands in respect of North sea plaice to boost the number of fish available, but can the Minister give an assurance that, if swaps with other countries are arranged, they will be based on a direct cod equivalent—if that species is the subject of a swap—and not on one that will benefit other countries? That has happened in the past, particularly with the Dutch.
Will the Minister try to avoid in this year's negotiations the kind of trade-off given last year, when the Danes received 500 tonnes of cod from our allocation as part of the political wheeling and dealing? I do not underestimate the pressure on the right hon. Gentleman, but given that our own fishing fleet is so strapped for quota, it is hard to see any justification for giving away such large amounts of high-quality fish.
I am convinced from my discussions with fishermen that, in an ideal world, they would much prefer to control the conservation of fish stocks by the use of appropriate, selective gear rather than by imposed quotas. Given the research and development that is under way, it may be that in time we shall be able to move towards conservation by means of selective gear, but I share the Minister's concern that the 120 mm mesh size proposed by the Commission is far too fine, particularly for mixed fisheries, and would certainly not be sustainable for our northern fleet.
I know that some British fleets successfully use a 120 mm mesh, particularly in cod fisheries in Grimsby, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). We pay tribute to those who are going for larger, premium fish, and who fish in a way that is both sustainable and conservation friendly.
I read the reports of the trials using 120 mm and 90 mm nets, and confirm the Minister's claim that during a two-week fishing trip, only eight marketable haddock were caught using the larger net, and no whiting whatever. However, it must be said that the boat used in that trial, Heather Spring —financed by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Sea Fish Industry Authority, Grampian regional council, and the Scottish White Fish Producers Associaton—was a twin-rig trawl. While it is true that the 120 mm mesh net was unrealistic in terms of sustaining any sort of commercial fishery, the enormous discard rate of the 90 mm net should be noted.
In that experiment, the 90 mm net caught 693 haddock of legal size and 846 haddock that legally would have to be discarded—far more than the total legal catch. The 90 mm net caught 378 whiting of legal size, and 525 undersized whiting that would have had to be discarded. On that basis, for every 100 tonnes of fish of legal size caught,


another 127 tonnes of undersized catch would have to be dumped over the side. That proportion of discards shows the real need to move towards conservation gear.
I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about industrial fishing. I do not recall hearing him make such a strong statement before. On behalf of the Opposition, I have consistently argued for an end to industrial fishing because of its unacceptable ecological impact and the by-catch that it entails. The discard rate that I have described is equally unacceptable. What is needed is a switch to the square meshed panels and conservation gear that are now being used experimentally.
We should not necessarily lock ourselves into minimum and maximum mesh size requirements. Different mesh sizes may be needed at different times of the year and in different parts of the sea—for example, in nursery areas. There is a cod box off the coast of Denmark where a 120 mm net would not be inappropriate during a period in which the cod were spawning, or considered to be vulnerable. A specific mesh size or gear type may not be the only answer to all our problems; fishermen should be able to operate with more flexibility.
We know that square-mesh panels result in a significant improvement. We have discussed the research that has been done, and the way in which such panels have been pioneered in this country. It is not clear, however, that the Commission's proposal for upper panels alone is an effective option, especially for cod fishing. It is more than possible that, if square meshes are used, both top and bottom panels should come into play to allow cod to escape from the bottom of the nets. Certainly more research is needed.
I was alarmed to read that fishermen on the east coast, who have been pioneering the trials, felt that there had been unacceptable delays in the financing and setting up of the experiments. Mr. Trumility, gear development officer at the sea fish gear development centre at the Hull technical unit, told Fishing News that the delays were due to lack of time, resources and staff. Surely the Minister agrees that, with the industry facing a crisis and under great pressure, priority should be given to such research and development. Fishermen themselves feel that they are under a constraint: their problems are not given anything like the same priority as those of agriculture. Of course agriculture too has its problems, but I feel that it is not unreasonable for the two sectors to receive equal treatment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The problem was illustrated for me last year, when I went to see the Minister with responsibility for fishing about a constituency matter. Fishermen in my area faced bankruptcy during, and following, the inclement weather, but the Minister said that there was no money. Meanwhile, the farmers were tipping over billions. I could not work out why that was.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is always quick to speak on behalf of his local fishermen, and he has made his point very well. When farmers are being paid to set lands aside, it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that fishermen should receive similar assistance.

Mr. Foulkes: May I give my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) some advice? If he wants to know why that is, he should count the farmers and ex-farmers on the Conservative Benches and then

count the fishermen and ex-fishermen. He will find that, while there is a large number of the former, in the latter case there is a big round zero.

Mr. Gummer: As one who is neither an ex-fisherman nor an ex-farmer, may I say that I am sure that the farming industry would be happy to swap much of the support that it has received for circumstances that would have allowed its receipts to increase faster than the cost of living in nine of the past 10 years? Farming incomes have dropped sharply, and both incomes and receipts have suffered a good deal. Surely it is not unreasonable for us to help.

Mr. Morley: I do not dispute the fact that farmers have their problems, but I think that the fisheries sector deserves similar treatment. While it is true that farm incomes have been cut—although there was a slight increase in the last financial year—farmers have had their good years and their boom times; incidentally, that has happened more under a Labour Government than under the present Administration.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend should also remind Conservative Members that, in the allocation of resources, share fishermen—who do very badly when the vessels are not at sea, eking out a precarious living—have been doubly maltreated by the Government. Under the new social security regime, they are effectively being denied the benefits due to them: they are paying in more and receiving less while the vessels are laid up for the Christmas season.

Mr. Morley: I understand that, following a review by the Department of Social Security, it has been decided not to change the regulations applying to share fishermen, who are indeed paying a higher stamp while receiving no extra benefits when they are unable to fish—particularly when laid up in ports by bad weather. I intend to take up the matter with the DSS, and I hope that the Government will reconsider. I do not think that such unequal treatment can be justified.
I am encouraged by news that the square mesh experiments have been carried out with nephrops, although it is too early to say what benefits will result. I also note that the EC is proposing TACs in all areas; I hope that the Minister will ensure that, if they are applied, the historical track record of those involved in the fisheries is taken into account, and that further consideration is given to the restriction of twin-rig trawls. The Minister has been very good about conservation gear and its effects, but when we have raised the problem of twin-rig trawls—particularly in the nephrops areas—he has been strangely reluctant to take steps to restrict such gear, although the fishermen are very much in favour of it.
I understand that the EC is considering changes in the horse mackerel TACs. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he would bear in mind the fact that the horse mackerel fishery has been developed for human consumption, which has been a great help to our slowly reviving pelagic fleet. Given its present market, it is a very high value-added product, and it would be a great shame if the fishery were squandered on industrial fishing. I also hope that the Minister will resist any pressure for TACs to be allocated on a national basis.
The Minister will have been waiting for Opposition Members to mention decommissioning, and I do not intend to disappoint him. We have said the same thing


time and again. The Minister was not here when we last debated decommissioning, but at that time not a single hon. Member representing a fishing constituency supported the Government's refusal to provide a decommissioning scheme, and I suspect that the same will happen this time. We know very well that this country has made no progress in meeting capacity cuts in line with the multi-annual guidance programme. We have one of the worst records in the EC. The Minister said that only a few countries have met their target, but at least some have done so. The danger is that countries such as Denmark, which has a high classification and is on line with its target programme, will argue that they should be exempt from some of the technical measures because they have met their targets in line with the multi-annual guidance programme. The danger is that some of the EC proposals will be imposed upon us because we are making no progress in reducing capacity and effort.
The Minister talked about the last decommissioning scheme and I do not doubt that there was waste and abuse and that it did not meet the criteria. The Minister may not have been here when the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), told the House that it was not beyond the powers of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come forward with a decommissioning scheme that would meet the criteria that we would want to see and ensure that capacity was reduced. In terms of cost, the Minister knows that the scheme is geared towards horse power and the age of fleets. If the older and less powerful boats were taken out, that would be reflected in the overall cost because the scheme is designed to reflect age, power and catching capacity. I do not see any reason why a scheme could not be put together to ensure that boats are taken out and that effort and capacity are reduced in line with the multi-annual guidance programme without it being abused or a waste of money. I cannot accept the Minister's arguments. I do not believe that the necessary expertise is not available.

Mr. Gummer: A fisherman may have two boats, one fishing for 90 days and one for 100 days. If he takes one of those boats out, is not it possible for the other boat to fish consecutively more days so that the effort is not altered at all? The only benefit that arises is that the fisherman pockets the decommissioning money. There is no way in which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) can suggest that we can use a decommissioning system that does not end up like that. All I am saying is that that is not a sensible way to spend taxpayers' money on reducing effort, although it may be a reasonable way to put money into the fishing industry if that is one's only aim.

Mr. Morley: With respect, that assumes that if someone is fishing for less time with one boat, he is catching fewer fish. A fisherman may catch a higher percentage of fish simply because he strikes lucky or because of the gear that he is using or the way in which he is working. It is not as simple as the Minister suggests.
How will we reduce capacity? We are not getting anywhere with the Minister's proposals. The steps that he has taken, such as licence aggregation and proposed entitlement aggregation, only scratch the surface of over-capacity. I should have been more impressed if the

Minister had shown the House that some progress was being made towards reaching the targets. We know that the schemes are being used successfully in other countries, which have reduced their fleets in line with the EC regulations. Because they have reduced their fleets, they qualify for modernisation grants and can restructure their fleets to make them more efficient and modern, thereby sustaining their industry at the expense of United Kingdom taxpayers who are paying into the fund but receiving nothing from it, notwithstanding the Minister's comments about the Fontainebleau agreement.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is now showing the absurdity of the scheme. He is suggesting that we should spend money taking boats from the fleet so that there would be an opportunity to take more money to modernise the boats left in the fleet so that their effort would increase. It is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman's taxpayers and the taxpayers of every constituency would be paying for that because of the Fontainebleau agreement. The hon. Gentleman is asking for taxpayers' money to reduce the fleet without reducing the effort and then to modernise the fleet in order to increase effort. It does not make sense.

Mr. Morley: I do not accept that. Fishing boats do not stay the same for ever. Already, certain parts of United Kingdom fleets, particularly in inshore areas, are having problems with aging fleets. Fishermen, because of the tight quotas, are unable to invest in replacements. There has to be a properly managed and sustainable industry that will ensure that the fishermen can find the investment that they need. Even with a reduced fleet, there will still have to be modernisation and investment. That can be done only with restructuring and we can restructure only with a decommissioning scheme.
The Minister would have greater credibility if he could demonstrate to the House that something is happening with his policies to reduce effort and capacity. Nothing is happening, so the onus is on him. If he rejects decommissioning, he must produce a workable scheme to meet the objectives, but he has failed to do so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I put a simple question to my hon. Friend? Will he press the Minister to explain why those schemes work in Europe but not here?

Mr. Morley: It is for the Minister to answer that. Other countries have not been slow in utilising the money to their advantage.

Mr. Gummer: First, we must remember that we are in Europe and that we are talking about other parts of Europe. I do not know how we shall deal with the European Community if we continue to talk like that. Secondly, the schemes do not work there either. There is no sign that effort is being reduced in other European countries. The money is being paid out but effort is not being reduced. It is not sensible for us, when we do not receive an enormous amount from Europe because of the Fontainebleau agreement, to do something that is not helpful to us and does not deal with effort.

Mr. Morley: With respect, the Minister has not demonstrated that what he is doing is helpful. The other European countries have made it clear that they are meeting their targets and are dealing with their fisheries with decommissioning as one of the management tools at


their disposal. The Minister is saying that it will not work in this country but is offering no alternative. He does not have a good track record to convince me or other hon. Members of what he has achieved. If the Minister could give us an idea of how he intends to meet the targets under the multi-annual guidance programme, we should be more reassured. We are not meeting the targets and we are not reducing effort. Funds are available in the EC to help with restructuring and reducing effort and the Government should take advantage of them.
Recently, when addressing the Commission, which was pressing him about restructuring, the Fisheries Commissioner said:
The Community participates in expenditure which is spent by member states. You have a right to that aid. The only problem is that as far as the British Authorities are concerned, they have not put in a request for it. I cannot pay subsidies if I am not asked to do so.
That suggests that the funds are available but the Government are not applying for them.
I should like to make some positive suggestions that the Minister may wish to take with him in his negotiations. We need an overall fishing strategy. There have been problems enforcing the fishing regulations, particularly in area VII. We are all aware of the fraud that occurred there and I note—I am ready to be corrected —that there has been no prosecution of anybody involved. Given those problems, would the Minister consider compulsory fitting of transponders on all fishing vessels? That would enable fleets to be tracked and monitored through central management. It would be a great aid to the management of our fisheries. It would show where fleets are operating and would have an added safety benefit, because should a transponder stop transmitting, the position of the vessel would immediately be recorded.
Will the Minister consider involving fishermen more in decision making on conservation? I am concerned that there seems to be little close contact between the scientists, who make recommendations, and fishermen, who well know the movements of fish, their size and their spawning areas. Many times, fishermen have said that certain parts of the fishing grounds could be closed or restricted. I am aware of the programme to close certain sensitive areas, but I do not see why fishermen could not be involved more in decision making, in recommendations and in the management of their fishing grounds.
It seems that the EC does not consult fishermen closely. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the 10-day restriction to reduce effort. He rightly said that 10 days in every month is no use because fishermen need flexibility of approach. They rely on the weather and the tides. It would be devastating, for the purpose of neat bureaucracy., for them to have to spend 10 days in every month in port and not be allowed to fish. That is not a reasonable or sensible approach. I hope that the Minister will consider it.
We all know the desperate state that the industry faces if these measures are not amended and practical steps are not taken to assist our fishermen. It is not fair for the Minister to say that fishermen will be compensated by higher fish prices. There is a limit to what processors and consumers will pay for fish. It is true to say that fish prices have increased because of the shortage, but it is wrong to assume that the price will continue to increase pro rata. It will reach a ceiling, below which fishermen will be pushed into ruin.
There is a limit to the patience of fishermen while they wait for practical measures such as a decommissioning scheme and a strong and sensible policy to manage our fisheries. I take what the Minister said. I believe that he recognises some of the problems. We certainly have a little agreement on certain parts of his approach to the negotiations, but to deal with the problems that our fishermen face we need a much stronger technical restructuring scheme, at the centre of which should be the decommissioning scheme.
I return to the original point: so far, the Minister has been unable to offer anything in place of a decommissioning scheme or any evidence that his approach is effective, is working and is dealing with the problems that fishermen all round our coasts face every day.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and of my right hon. Friend the Minister about the Premier. All hon. Members—the hon. Lady knows this from our discussions with her and exchanges in the past 24 hours—are sensitive to what has happened. Our thoughts and prayers go to the families of those who were so tragically involved.
Sadly, we in the north-east of Scotland are not strangers to tragedy, and that is true of fishing communities around the coasts of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the north-east of Scotland, we have also had the tragedies connected with the North sea oil industry. That underlines the fact that those who must battle with the elements for their livelihood do take special risks. Hon. Members are sensitive to those risks and join, regardless of party, in sympathy for those who have been involved in such accidents.
I must confess that I thought that we were having a question time at the beginning of the debate, which I am afraid will limit the opportunities of some hon. Members. I shall therefore do my best not to detain the House for long.
Although we welcome the explanations that my right hon. Friend the Minister always gives so lucidly on these occasions, none the less, we want the views of our parts of the United Kingdom taken into account at the negotiations. May I say quite unequivocally that I welcomed my right hon. Friend's robust defence of the United Kingdom's interests in the negotiations? Hon. Members will leave the debate heartened by what he said.
I pay tribute to the constructive, thoughtful and helpful speech of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Many of the problems in fishing can be approached—I certainly welcomed this when I had responsibility for these matters—on a bipartisan basis, which, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged, strengthens the British negotiating position. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe certainly contributed to that.
I acknowledge what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about the fishing industry: the year turned out better than it appeared it would at the beginning. On straight financial receipts for the industry, it does look better, but I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that the results were patchy. Many of the high earnings were in the early part of the year, when many boats could not go to sea. The limited number of boats that were able to do so had good returns, but when one considers the fleet as a whole,


particularly the smaller classes of vessel, one realises that we cannot be complacent about the financial position of the industry. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider not only the overall position of the industry but the different sectors within it—where, unfortunately, the story is not always the same.
As many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall deal only with a few specific points, the first of which is the diamond versus the square mesh net. I am delighted that we have a good debate going on this subject, because there is no doubt that we must avoid the indiscriminate slaughter of juvenile fish which occurs with the diamond mesh net. Hon. Members welcome any move towards adoption of a square mesh net, particularly in the cod end, and my right hon. Friend the Minister can rely on our wholehearted support.
My only anxiety —this is looking backwards rather than forwards—is how slow we have been to follow this up and to develop it. I am afraid that there appears to have been reluctance in certain research establishments and elsewhere to follow this through vigorously. I make the plea that we do not necessarily wait until all our experiments are completed. Let us look also at experimental and practical experience in countries such as Canada. In the course of the year, I supplied my noble Friend Lord Sanderson, who was responsible for fisheries at the Scottish Office, with much evidence, particularly from Canada. I am glad to see that it has been acted on, but let us ensure that it is acted on quickly.
I am not qualified to say which size of square mesh may be correct. All I can say is that I hope we reach a sensible compromise and that we avoid the indiscriminate slaughter of juvenile stocks, on which the future livelihood of our fishermen must depend.
The 10-day rule for the limitation of fishery effort is ridiculous. It is arbitrary, it does not take account of practical conditions in the industry, and because larger vessels can choose their time at sea much more easily than other vessels, it will, if adopted, discriminate against smaller vessels in the fleet, which none of us wants. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that that rule is dropped.
I turn to the negotiations with Norway about mackerel and herring. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister explain why the Commission recommended that the mackerel total allowable catch should be exceeded to accommodate Norway, but that the TACs for white fish recommended by scientists should be strictly complied with? That paradox should be explained. I cannot understand that proposal.
Norway is to get 28,000 tonnes more mackerel from the western stocks and is to increase its share by 4 per cent. The United Kingdom will get only 8,000 additional tonnes out of the increase. I do not believe that the result of the negotiations is fair. It discriminates against our fishermen and does not make sense in terms of a consistent policy on TACs. The same applies to North sea herring stock. Although the Norwegian share of the TAC goes down from 29 per cent. to 25 per cent., 12,500 tonnes are to be transferred from the Community to Norway. That does not make sense. The Commission must be much more resolute in negotiations with Norway.
I shall not go into the details of other TACs, because I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken all those points on board. The Hague preference was hard won. Much effort was needed to get it, and I can assure my right hon. Friend of that from first-hand experience. I should hate it to be diminished in any way. I was delighted by my right hon. Friend's clear declaration. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will support him in defending it.
Structure is the most important issue. I know that my right hon. Friend will not like what I have to say, because he knows my views. My thoughts are perhaps closer to those of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe than to those of my right hon. Friend. We need a much more rigorous approach to the question of the size of the fleet and of the fishing effort. I for one would have adopted a much more rigorous licensing system than the one that the Government introduced. If we have a licensing system, it must be rigorous. I welcome the changes this year, because they are an improvement in the right direction, but we should have started with a much tighter system. That was always my belief, but, alas, a general election and a change of Government position meant that I could not follow it through.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has certain reservations about a decommissioning scheme, and he expressed them strongly this evening. It can be argued that either a more rigorous licensing scheme or a decommissioning scheme is highly interventionist, and I accept that. After all, as my right hon. Friend admitted, we are dealing with a hunting industry—moreover, one in which the resource being hunted is limited. As surely as night follows day, there must be regulation. We already have intervention. I cannot understand the reluctance to have the slightly greater degree of intervention that will be much more effective in bringing the technical and physical resources used to hunt fish more closely into gear with fish resources.
We must reduce the pressure on stocks. Although some of the measures that we have introduced are helpful, they will not bring that about in a major way. I cannot understand some of the arguments put by my right hon. Friend the Minister. Surely, if the capacity of the fishing fleet is reduced—either the more efficient or the less efficient part—the existing available catch is shared among fewer vessels and fewer fishermen and those remaining in the industry become much more viable. If, at the same time, we throw all our conservation measures overboard and decide to get rid of quotas, TACs and the rest, of course we will get more effort from the remaining capacity. But surely no one is talking about that. We keep our conservation measures, our mesh sizes for nets, our TACs and our quotas, but, by reducing capacity, we make sure that the income available to the industry is spread among fewer boats and fewer fishermen.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has spoken from the basis of his experience with company fishing vessels at Humberside, which I believe, in the light of the Public Accounts Committee's report, has scarred him. Of course, those who manage company fleets will get rid of their least efficient vessels and fish with the more efficient remaining vessels. I believe that the scheme was badly managed.
We can learn from the lessons of dealing with company fleets. But we are not talking so much about that now as about share fishermen. We are talking about a situation in which one family might own, at the most, two vessels.
Those fishermen do not have a choice. A decommissioning scheme among the share section of the fleet would take away the vessel and the ownership, and that is that—those people cannot change from one vessel to another.

Sir Michael Shaw: I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee which examined this matter. As I said in the previous fisheries debate, the report stated:
We note that member states were given options as to how the EC scheme for decommissioning grants should be applied but MAFF chose to introduce a regulatory approach with provision for the automatic payment of flat rate grants.
Surely we should be thinking about more flexible systems, pinpointing grant where it is needed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening, because he makes his point having examined this matter. The schemes could be refined to reduce the capacity of our fishing fleet, which would be a proper and sensible way to proceed.
I hope that I have shown that some of the assumptions made by my right hon. Friend the Minister are wrong. They should be challenged, and I certainly challenge them. I beg my right hon. Friend to consider this matter again and not to be prejudiced because of experience of a previous scheme—that can be changed. I ask him to consider the issue in the context of the inshore fleet and of the share fishermen, because they are different.
Last but not least, I believe that the industry is prepared to discuss how to co-operate in devising and operating such a scheme. The industry has offered to do that. It would be wrong if the Minister did not take up those offers and did not move forward on the issue of decommissioning in co-operation with the industry. That is vital. That matter must be dealt with as part of our fisheries policy.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) because I agree with nearly everything that he said. I demur on his point about the Hague preference which, as far as Grimsby is concerned, is the Hague handicap because we do not get it. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a passionate and strong invocation of a need which has been put to Ministers by hon. Members on both sides of the House—to get something done about a decommissioning scheme. The debates fall into a comon pattern, and that demand comes across strongly. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman's strong statement.
The prospects foretold by the documents are gloomy. We are in a conservation crisis. If the cuts in TACs are implemented in full—for instance, 15 per cent. for North sea cod—it will be disastrous for the industry and for Grimsby. We are a cod port. We are also a fishing centre, a market centre and a processing centre. There are nine jobs on land for every one job at sea and those jobs depend on the catches made at sea. If there is a cut in the catch, it has a knock-on effect on the whole industry—on the processing side and on the market through which a high proportion of the fish comes. It is the best market in. the country and there is a distribution system which, in turn, supports the market. Those elements of the industry are now nearing the limit of viability. Any cut in catches, in throughput in the market and in what goes into the distribution system would have a disastrous and

disproportionate effect on the industry. It would endanger the existence of the distribution system and undermine the market that is crucial to the distribution and demand for fish throughout the country. We are in a crucial situation which could have dire effects for Grimsby.
It is important to put to Ministers the concern that we all feel so strongly and passionately. I am amazed that, after the strong and passionate pleas for a decommissioning scheme that were made in each previous fishing debate, Ministers remain impervious to the argument. The Minister's defence of his failure to provide a decommissioning scheme was casuistry which might go down well in Convocation, for which it is better designed, but which cuts no ice with the fishermen because it defies common sense. If the Government were to provide a decommissioning scheme to cut the amount of effort, they would automatically provide for more effective and better conservation. That is essential.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister's case was that if one reduced the size of the fleet, there would be greater fishing effort and damage to conservation. By that token, the way in which he should help to reduce fishing effort is to have grants for new-built boats to increase the size of the fleet. It does not add up.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If it is reduced to that ludicrous dimension, the illogicality of the Minister's argument becomes clear. It is wrong that, although on each occasion we have transmitted to him the strong demand of the industry, he has remained immune to the argument. It is also bad for our negotiating position and for the way in which the conservation measures apply to the industry. It would be ludicrous if the burden of the measures suggested by the Commission, such as the proposal for 10 consecutive closed days which would be disastrous for the industry, fell disproportionately on this country because we were lagging behind through our failure to provide a decommissioning scheme.
The Commission classifies nations participating in the common fisheries policy according to their compliance with the multi-annual guidance programme targets. Countries are classified from A to E. On that classification, we are E. Why is that? The reason is that we fail so disastrously to comply with the targets. For a long period now it has been envisaged that there should be a reduction of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum, so there should be a gradual reduction in effort. When we had a decommissioning scheme, we complied with that reduction of effort and the scheme got us within the targets. Since then, we have fallen behind. For various reasons, some of which are beyond the Minister's control—the number of quota hoppers has added to the pressures—we are 25 per cent. astray from our target.
We are the worst case in Europe. Even Spain, whose behaviour is monstrous in many respects and of whose approach I am a constant critic, is classified as D, whereas we are classified as E. Denmark, which has a good decommissioning scheme that works well and has substantially reduced the effort in a rational and predictable way, is classified as A. That puts us in a difficult position. It leads to the disproportionate application of conservation measures to this country and it isolates us from the concerted approach that fishing nations could take. Denmark may want to isolate us and


place the main burden of its criticism of demand on this country because Ministers have left us exposed by their failure to introduce a proper decommissioning scheme.
This is not a question merely of the casuistry that the Minister invoked. A vital national interest is being set back by a total failure to listen to the industry and by Ministers' incompetence in administering the previous scheme.
Ministers have also brought an undesirable fate to the industry through their attitude to the type of nets used. That point has been made by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside and has been hammered home in each previous debate. There have been discussions about square mesh nets and their advantage over diamond mesh, which pulls out of shape. However, it is important that the work on square mesh panels should not be held back. There is a suspicion that the approach of the Ministry and of some research institutions that are prejudiced about square mesh panels has held back the argument. The Government have failed to advance research in this area, so we do not know exactly what the consequences are.
I have seen research that suggests that square mesh panels may have real benefits in catching bigger and, therefore, more marketable and better fish. I have also heard fishermen argue that that does not work with cod. They argue that as cod are lazy fish, they go into the net and do not try to get out. I cannot tell the truth of those arguments. I feel instinctively, from what I have read about square mesh panels, that they would give an enormous advantage, which we should be pursuing. It is the Government's responsibility to provide the documentation and the research to tell us. We need a clear argument to put before the Commission so that we do not have something imposed on us. We should put our argument on the advantages to the Commission and we should impose it on our industry so that we are in advance of the conservation game and not lagging plaintively behind, arguing among ourselves about 90 mm, 120 mm, 110 mm, or 100 mm mesh size, which the Government are secretly urging in the negotiations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The hon. Gentleman is doing less than justice to the work of British fishermen and of the Ministry. We have led research in the matter, but it has not been accepted in the Community. All the proposals put forward have a combination of diamond mesh and square mesh; the argument is whether it should be compulsory or voluntary. We believe that to get other countries to accept it, we should start with an optional approach on size. There is a genuine argument there. British fishermen have said that they want to have the option only of 80 mm square panels and a 90 mm mesh and that they want to leave the rest as it is. Entirely legally, a 90 mm square mesh panel could be introduced tomorrow morning. We must try to achieve an arrangement in the Community that will not only bring a positive gain in the conservation of fish, but will conserve the livelihood of fishermen.
The Commission's proposals will not achieve that aim. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that the status quo is far too wasteful, so we must agree on a formula between the two. What the fishermen

have asked us to negotiate is almost impossible. We must find a middle way. We are in the lead on this and we are recognised as being in the lead.

Mr. Mitchell: I agree with the Minister that we should make a clear decision. However, that decision could have been made some time ago as the arguments have been clear for a long time. It is ludicrous that we are arguing and bickering at this stage of the process when we could have anticipated events.
The Minister mentioned the research done by the industry. It is wrong that the onus of research should be placed on organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and on the industry itself. It should have been done at Ministry level over a period so that we could now see the advantages, impose our proposals and have a clear case. A decision is needed. We do not need endless arguments about net size or about top and bottom panels. We need to be able to say something definite, so a decision must be taken. That is where the Government have delayed and let the industry down.
As I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall turn now to my main points. From a Grimsby point of view, it is absolutely vital that the Minister resists the reduction in TACs of cod. If they are cut from 105,000 tonnes to the proposed 90,000 tonnes, it will mean the immediate invocation of the Hague preference. That would be disastrous for Grimsby and we must be safeguarded from it. It would mean that fish was effectively being taken away from us and we would be put at a disadvantage compared with the ports along the arbitrary line that the Minister defined, beginning at Flamborough head, which bears no relation to the communities which depend on Grimsby's fishing and which should be allowed to participate in the debate if the Hague preference is to be invoked. The Minister should not allow the invocation of the Hague preference because it would not only be unfair to Grimsby; it would be disastrous.
The improvement in catches given to this country under the CAP was compensation for the fishing effort that was lost in Iceland. That fishing effort was conducted by vessels from Humberside. Since then, the increased catch has been taken mainly by Scottish vessels, which have been able to establish an historic track record, which Humberside does not have. However, Scotland has other advantages, such as the 12-mile limit. It would be absolutely wrong if we were now asked to suffer, through the Hague preference, to compensate Scottish vessels. It would be wrong because of Grimsby's good conservation record. We use 120 and 110 mm mesh, which is a good efficient method of conservation. Grimsby is a cod port which catches good, large, prime fish.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I was involved in this argument with the hon. Gentleman in our previous debate on this and I shall not get bogged down again.
We are a conservation-proud and conservation-conscious port. Moreover, unlike the Scottish industry, we pace our catches and quotas properly and fairly throughout the year. Our fishermen do not go out to grab as much as possible, thus producing the danger of a closure simply because of greed and grabbing too early in the year. Our conservation record should be recognised. There


should not be discrimination against Grimsby, such as the Hague preference would produce. We are a very good conservation port.
If conservation measures are introduced, such as the proposed 10 consecutive days in port, they should be applied on an individual track record basis, not on a blanket basis throughout the industry. An allocation allowance must be made for the mesh size that is used so that those vessels using the larger mesh size, such as those from Grimsby, are not faced with the same requirement for 10 closed consecutive days which those without the same conservation record are now to face. If that is applied to the main species, such as cod, haddock and whiling, it should exclude saithe and plaice. We need a better deal for saithe especially in relation to Norway. Ministers have neglected to take the opportunity of the improvement in those stocks in 1991. Although more will be available next year, Ministers have not achieved sufficient benefit for this country.
I remember the contempt with which we viewed horse mackerel when John Silkin came back to the House to announce that we had been given the consolation prize of an increase in the horse mackerel quota in 1978. That fish is now used for human consumption. It is therefore wrong that we should have national quotas out of which, because of their industrial fishing, the Danes will do well. That fish should be developed as a stock for human consumption.
My final point relates to discards, which are a real conservation problem. The Minister should consider seriously how to deal with this. The Scottish industry's discard record is appalling. One hears instances of vessels catching a number of boxes, but then seeing and catching a large amount of better fish and chucking the earlier inadequate fish over the side, thus adding to the discard problem. It is essential that we do something about discards. Given that discards are low in Grimsby, I suggest that all the fish that is caught should be returned and registered to quota. That would impose an effective discipline on the industry and would help us to tackle a problem that cannot be allowed to continue in such a way.
In conclusion, the prospects are poor. We need proper conservation. We need a decommissioning scheme and we need an orderly rundown in the industry in the face of the dire prospects if we are to survive in a coherent and concentrated form to inherit the better opportunties that will lie ahead.

Mr. David Harris: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in expressing sympathy, through the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), to her constituents who have lost relations in the dreadful tragedy. In the years that I have been a Member of the House, it has all too frequently been my sad duty to visit the relatives of fishermen who have been drowned. Indeed, I did so this summer. We all know the anguish that those relations go through, especially when the bodies have not been recovered from the sea. That is always an awful additional agony in such times of sadness.
In that connection, I refer to the work of an organisation that is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the House, the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen. I always like to visit fishermen's relations in the company of the Mission superintendent. Those of us who represent

fishing constituencies know the tremendous work that that organisation does quietly and behind the scenes, especially in moments of tragedy, such as the one we mark tonight.
I make no apology for returning to an issue which has not featured greatly in the debate, although it was mentioned briefly by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I refer to the Spanish threat. All our fishermen face the possibility of the dreaded wretched quota-hoppers from Spain. We all dread the possibility that boats that are Spanish to all intents and purposes will start to come back—and some have already done so because of court rulings—in big numbers as a result of the case that starts in the European Court of Justice on 17 January.
I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench for all the work that they have done on this issue. The trouble is that the decisions so often lie with the Commission. Perhaps it is no coincidence —I make no point about it—that the Commissioner is a Spaniard. However, the outcome also lies with the decisions of the courts, both the European Court and our own. The sad fact is that we have so far lost several of the interim cases before the major case begins on 17 January. I hold firmly to the view that, whatever happens, this country and this Government must obey the rulings of the courts. I say that without equivocation, in whatever court the ruling is made.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), were good enough to meet a delegation of leaders of Cornish fishermen, which I accompanied, to talk about foreign quota-hoppers. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend agree that there was some frank talking at that meeting. The Cornish fishermen are in the front line in facing the threat. What we cannot understand is how on earth we can have a common fisheries policy based on national quotas while foreign boats can fish against our quotas because of an accident of history and through several devices.
The essence of tonight's debate has been the pressure on our quotas. It is ludicrous and it drives a coach and horses through the common fisheries policy that foreign boats can fish against our quotas. I am afraid that if the vessels from Spain return to our waters and fish against our quotas in the numbers in which they did in the past, our industry, particularly in the south-west, will be devastated.
The pressure on quotas is already enormous. Yet the Commission says that foreign boats should be allowed to fish as though they were British boats, thereby devastating the British industry. That just does not make sense and Cornish fishermen in particular have every justification for being angry and bitter. Their livelihood is being threatened.
I pay tribute to the work done by the Government on quota-hoppers. I am delighted that the Solicitor-General himself will put the British case when the case begins in Luxembourg on 17 January. Quota-hopping by foreign boats is the greatest threat to our industry, but it takes place against the background of pressure on so many quotas—not least the pressure on quotas in the channel and the western approaches.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, was good enough to refer to the cuts in some quotas I reinforce what he said. I agreed with much of his speech.
If the Commission's proposals are implemented, the cuts that will be made in area VII—the waters which mainly affect the south-west—for plaice and sole will be enormous. In area Vile, part of the channel, we could face a cut in quota of almost 40 per cent. for sole. The combined effect of cuts in British total allowable catches —I should use that phrase, rather than the word quota —for plaice and sole in area VII could result in a loss of earnings of £6 million for sole and £12 million for plaice. That is big money by anyone's reckoning. Some of that could be offset by swaps with other countries and I hope that that would be the case.
In that connection—the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe drew attention to this—in certain areas it would be safe to increase the TAC and the quotas. I refer in particular to areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk for sole. That would make a great difference and would help offset the difficulties which otherwise will undoubtedly face our fishermen.
Lastly—I, too, wish to be brief—I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening remarks on deliberate misreporting. "Deliberate misreporting" is an euphemism. I have another word for it which I used in the previous debate on the matter. It is "cheating". In that debate about one month ago I said some harsh things about some Scottish fishermen. Those remarks have not been rebutted and I do not believe that they can be.
I wish to add to what I said and I do not do so with any sense of glee or pleasure. At my meeting with Ministers yesterday, certain information was given to them which had already been given to officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about a Scottish boat which landed its catch in Peterhead on 3 December. I am told that that catch was recorded as having been caught in area VII —the area of sea off south-west Ireland. It is alleged—I do not have the proof—that the catch was made some 140 miles north-east of Peterhead. I am deliberately not mentioning the boat's name because it would be unfair and irresponsible to do so under privilege when the Ministry's officials and Ministers have been given it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State for Scotland and ask him to establish where those fish were caught.

Mr. Salmond: I have told the hon. Gentleman previously that Members who represent fishing constituencies should not spend their time in debates attacking other fishing constituencies. If he has evidence, he should forward it to the appropriate authorities. Does he realise that the whole fishing industry is awash with rumours? Trawlers from the south-west of England have been spending their time fishing in the English channel and reporting that they have been on the Irish sea. Anyone can make allegations. Has the hon. Gentleman investigated those allegations or done anything about them? Is he even aware of them?

Mr. Harris: I have done precisely what the hon. Gentleman urges. I know that the information has been made available to officials and Ministers. [Interruption.] Tonight I am asking for an assurance that that information is being fully investigated with the owners and operators of that particular boat.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is showing his ignorance of the law.

Mr. Harris: Hon. Gentlemen are getting touchy about the subject and I can understand why.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman has any information of that kind, he should direct it to the office of the procurator fiscal at Peterhead. If the law has been broken, it is not for those sitting on the Treasury Bench to seek to enforce it, but for the appropriate authority in Scotland.

Mr. Harris: The information has been relayed to the Ministry and, I believe, to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland because the licence for area VIIk under which the boat operated was issued, not by the procurator fiscal, but by DAFS. Therefore, DAFS has a responsibility for ensuring that the fish were caught in that area. Unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not a lawyer, but that is why the Ministry and the Department have a direct responsibility to get to the bottom of the matter.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be most unfortunate if this were presented as a Scotland-England issue? Does he accept that tonight I was speaking to fishermen's representatives from the west coast of Scotland who were anxious that precisely the same point should be made in east-west terms? I hope that every hon. Member and every party will unconditionally condemn misreporting and non-reporting.

Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and hon. Members who are protesting and seem to be sensitive on this issue will remember that a month ago when I raised similar cases I had the support not just of Labour Members but of a Northern Ireland Member who virtually repeated word for word the allegation that I have made.
There has undoubtedly been cheating on a massive scale. The trouble is that this is a double-edged knife. On the one hand, it exhausts more quickly quotas which would normally be fished by fishermen from the south-west and other parts of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, as my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, unless remedial steps are taken against cheating, fishermen who are cheating are building up an unfair track record for the future.
With respect to hon. Members, this is not just a matter for prosecution, but one of direct concern for the fishing departments of MAFF, DAFS and Northern Ireland. For that reason, I welcome what my right hon. Friend said. I have confidence that he will ensure that the practice of misreporting is brought to an end rapidly.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I beg to move, in line 11, to leave out from "and" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
demands that the Government now display some commitment to this vital resource industry and pursue a more vigorous policy in the fisheries negotiations by insisting on implementation of the technical conservation measures on square mesh panels agreed by fishermen and supported by sea trials, rejecting the discriminatory and unworkable proposals on limitation of effort proposed by the EC Commission, moving away from the restriction of catches for human


consumption to the elimination of industrial fishing, and recognising that the fishing industry is entitled to the structural support enjoyed by virtually every other fleet in Europe.".
This debate takes place against the background of the loss of the Premier. That loss is relevant to the debate because all hon. Members should be reminded of the enormous dangers that fishermen face every time they go to sea. It also places an obligation on all of us to do whatever we can to relieve at least the economic pressures on the industry.
I was disturbed at some of the remarks of the Minister, who seemed to adopt a relatively complacent attitude to the extent of the financial problems of the fishing industry. If we had net income figures for the fishing industry, in the same way as we have for farming, they would show an altogether different picture from that of the crude revenue base on which the Minister is proceeding. Costs in the industry have escalated dramatically as a result of high interest payments and the cost of capital equipment —boats and gear. Recently fuel costs have more than doubled. At this time of year boats have to go further afield to fish and those fuel charges become an ever-increasing element of overall costs.
In the past year the economic crisis facing the industry has not lessened. It has been transported onshore and its impact is being felt through high prices in the processing sector. That has had an effect on the processing companies and their workers, many of whom earn under £100 a week. In my constituency many of those workers have not received any wage increase this year. If Ministers swapped places with fish processing workers they would realise that there is a crisis in the fishing industry and they would appreciate the economic conditions that those people face. Let us not be complacent about the extent of the financial problems.
In the light of the two fishing tragedies of recent weeks, it would be inconceivable if there was any support in the House for a system of effort limitation as it would inevitably increase the dangers faced by fishermen. A 10 consecutive day system would do just that because if boats were in port for 10 fine days there would be a greater pressure to go to sea for the remaining 20 days of the month, regardless of the weather conditions. Some people may believe that effort limitation is a valid proposal, but it would he wrong for the House to support it in this form.
Given the Minister's well-known religious interests, I hope that he understands that the proposal would trespass on the religious convictions of those who will not go to sea on Sunday. It would intefere with the fishing pattern that has been established by many of my constituents over many generations. I hope that that will be borne in mind by the Government.
We are all committed to do whatever we can to decrease the inevitable dangers faced by fishermen. At the moment pelagic species must be landed at Ullapool and I am aware of two fully laden boats that had to turn back front that port because of adverse weather conditions. I hope that Ministers will bear it in mind that if a more flexible policy was introduced for the pelagic sector it might make matters safer for fishermen.
Boats from Fraserburgh, Peterhead and elsewhere in my constituency have probably spent the past three days sheltering near Orkney against the adverse weather. If circumstances changed and they had to do 10 consecutive days—if they had overstayed their time at sea and were

going into their compulsory lay-up period—they would now be faced with the prospect, having run the risk of being at sea, of having to sail directly back to their home ports to be able to start their 10 consecutive days at home. That is not a workable system and I do not believe that it will be accepted by the industry. I hope that it will be rejected out of hand in the negotiations in the Community later in the week.
I was in some confusion during the Minister's speech to know whether he was attacking the amendment because he disagreed with it or whether—as seemed to be the case later in his speech —he was attacking it because he agreed with it. He seemed to advance a bizarre series of arguments. I took comfort from that because I believe that fundamentally he could not see anything wrong with the amendment as he tried to resist it.
I will deal with the points made in the amendment so that the Minister appreciates fully what we are getting at. I have dealt with limitation of effort. Next, we are arguing for technical measures. We are on the brink of an enormous step forward in the fishing industry. The proposal for the 90 mm mesh size, with the 80 mm square mesh panel above the cod end, is greeted enthusiastically by the fishermen. It has been tested in sea trials and, as the Government are aware, the results have been dramatic in terms of discards and allowing smaller, immature fish to escape alive. There has been a 31 per cent. increase in the escape of haddock and a 46 per cent. increase in the escape of whiting. There is substantial evidence to show that that proposal would bring about what we all want—a reduction in the number of fish discarded dead into the sea. It would allow small, immature fish a chance to escape alive and in good condition. We are on the brink of a major breakthrough.
That is why it would be disappointing if the Government were about to retreat from that proposal, which is backed by scientific evidence and which Ministers have told me privately they support. They accept that it is the best way technically to manage mixed fishing in the North sea. It would be disappointing if that opportunity were lost in some fudged compromise involving the ridiculous proposal of 120 mm that has come from the European Commission.

Mr. Curry: Perhaps I might spell out the position for the hon. Gentleman; I do not want to polemicise it. We understand that the industry would prefer a 90 mm diamond with an 80 mm square panel. I tried to obtain that at the previous Fisheries Council meeting, but there was no support for it. Nor was there support for the Marin proposal. That is dead in the water, and will remain so. The Commission is now arguing for a 110 mm mesh and it will be difficult to head off a majority on that.
I will obtain the best possible deal for the fishing industry, and I wish the House to be clear about the position because I do not want to deceive anybody. The proposal that the fishermen endorse is regarded as very minimalist, and I believe that it would be difficult to obtain. Nothing stops them putting a 90 mm square panel in the existing mesh, and of course the higher one goes the better the spin-off. There is a problem over livelihood—I recognise that dilemma—and it must be dealt with.

Mr. Salmond: That intervention suggests that the Government are backing off the 90–80 formulation which has been greeted with enthusiasm by the industry. The


great advantage of having a conservation measure that is backed by the industry is that it has the best possible chance of being put into practice. That is what we are on the threshold of achieving, but the Government seem to be backing off.
I understand what the Minister said about resistance among other Community members, but if he were more amenable to structural policies and a decommissioning scheme all sorts of things would become possible in the fishery negotiations. If the Minister and the Government negotiators continue to be obdurate, it is hardly surprising that they get no sympathy from other European delegates when it comes to negotiating over technical measures.
Earlier, the Minister said that he thought that the policy of low quotas had been relatively successful. I think that the policy has failed. Setting ever-lower quotas means that the industry ends up chasing its tail. Lower and lower quotas cannot work because we are setting single species quotas in a mixed fishery, so it is inevitable that one species of fish will run out before the quota of another runs out. That means that there are bound to be discards.
I know that the public finds this difficult to understand, but it is absolutely legal to discard dead fish in the North sea and it is illegal to land those fish once they have been caught. It is ridiculous, but that is the inevitable result of the present quotas. They cannot work because of their vulnerability to discarding, which is the real enemy of fishermen, of conservation and of progress in policy in the future.
I hope that Ministers will accept that the emphasis in fisheries policy must move to technical conservation measures, when they are established; but I also hope that they will agree that it is idiotic and obscene to set quota levels for fish for human consumption so low when there has been an increase in industrial fishing in the North sea. The Minister told us that he had opposed industrial fishing for a long time, so I was moved to check some statistics to see what had been the impact of his opposition on industrial catch levels in the North sea.
My statistics, for estimated trawl fishery landings from the North sea, are from the past three years and are taken from a parliamentary reply by the present Secretary of State for Scotland on 16 July this year. In 1987, 1,106,000 tonnes of industrial fishery was landed from the North sea alone. In 1988, the figure was 1,349,000 tonnes, and in 1989, 1,483,000 tonnes—mostly, as we all know, landed by Danish and Dutch fleets. So in the very years when increased pressure has been put on fisheries for human consumption, for which the quotas have been dramatically lowered, industrial fishing in the North sea has increased. If that is the result of the Minister's trenchant opposition to industrial fishing, I should have hated to see what would have happened had he not entered negotiations arguing against it.
We know from previous fishing debates that industrial fishing has never been discussed as a specific policy item at Council meetings. When will this obscenity be tackled? Millions of tonnes of small fish, pout and sand-eels, are taken from the North sea—the feed stock and foodstuff of a future fishery. Meanwhile, fish for human consumption is allowed to be taken only at levels so low as to be almost untenable.
Our amendment refers to structural measures—not only to decommissioning but to temporary lay-up measures, of which some Community countries, particularly Spain, have taken advantage. In 1987, 1988 and 1989, 50 million, 30 million and 6 million ecu —I am not sure whether hard or not—have been spent on lay-up schemes and have mostly gone to Spain. Thirty-seven million ecu, 49 million ecu and 45 million ecu respectively for the same years have gone on decommissioning, mostly to the Danes and Dutch. That amounts to a total of £150 million in structural support over these three years, of which the United Kingdom's share has been zero because of the Government's obdurate opposition to structural measures.
Regardless of the Minister's embarrassment at presiding over a failed decommissioning scheme six years ago, surely we cannot allow our fishing industry to face competition from other European fleets at such a massive and major disadvantage. By all means let us have a better decommissioning scheme than the one that sent many millions of pounds sailing up the Humber about six years ago. A common sense flexible scheme would allow some reduction in fishing capacity, some amelioration of the problem and progress towards meeting the guidance targets.
Those are the three points in the amendment, and my hon. Friends and I will force the issue to a vote. However, having heard the explanation perhaps the Minister will accept our amendment. Failing that, and given the special characteristics of this industry, I am sure that the Minister understands that hon. Members from fishing constituencies must vigorously represent this industry. We inherited the cause in our constituencies. In the winding-up speech I should like to hear some concessions to the important, positive and constructive arguments that have been advanced on behalf of fishermen.

Sir Michael Shaw: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that hon. Members who represent fishing ports strongly support their fishermen, who play an important part in their constituencies. Time is running short, so I shall be brief.
Happily, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is back with us for the debate. I well remember when he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) presented an agreement to the House. That was a good agreement and greatly favoured our fishing industry. Ministers are doing a first-class job in Brussels on behalf of our people. Sometimes the results have not been what we would have wished, but we are fortunate to have such competent Ministers representing us in negotiations, which my fishermen are carefully following.
Quotas have been lowered each year and are now at a critical level. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food assure us that any further reduction in the quotas would be kept to a minimum. That is right because we must look not only to the future of the fish but to the future of fishermen and their industry.
Secondly, I was glad to hear about the positive conservation measures that have been taken by the industry. My fishermen have engaged in such experiments


and I hope that their experience will be taken into account. The system of 10 consecutive days of non-fishing produces greater hardship for fishermen than the mathematical calculations suggest. Fishermen, and especially those who work on the north-east coast, have to contend with changeable and dangerous conditions and need to be able to time their fishing operations if they are to be successful. I hope that that will be taken fully into account in the negotiations. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, and I wish him well in the negotiations next week.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I extend my condolences to the bereaved families of the Premier. All of us who have many close connections with the fishing industry, through either our constituencies or families, never become inured to sadness as each winter goes by and we lose a vessel, with the disappearance of a whole crew or a part crew, as the men are washed over the side. During the bitter winter months we have a constant concern for those who sail our seas to find a living. That feeling unites all of us in the House.
When the Minister began his speech he properly paid tribute to those who have suffered. However, I regret that the memory of the combination of forces faded quickly from his mind, and when he reached the substance of his speech he appeared to have a complete lapse of memory. He seems to have forgotten that the Conservative party leadership has changed. Stridency and haranguing are out of the window. We are supposed to be having the quieter, caring approach nowadays. This criticism may appear trivial to some, but if, whenever a criticism is made or a doubt cast on something in the Minister's speech or in the technical papers, he regards that in a party political sense, he will do the fishing industry no good.
I have taken part in these debates for almost 20 years, and it has long been the tradition to seek to send the Minister to the negotiations carrying the House with him, and the Minister has almost always sought that too. It has seldom been necessary to force Divisions. Ministers have usually taken the depth and strength of feeling in criticisms with them as a bargaining point on their side, instead of discounting them as if we did not care about what happens.
I am always irritated when the Minister sits and gossips instead of listening to the debate. He should bear it in mind that we are trying to ensure that we obtain the best possible deal for our constituents and the industry. The Minister went too far when he said that we were trying to give the fishermen a soft option, trying to buy votes. That is an insult to all fishermen. Anyone who promised that quotas and TACs would be increased and that fishermen could catch all the fish that they liked would be laughed at. Anyone who thought that he could get a vote that way would be considered crazy and no one would vote for him.
It is easy to try to make the soft option, but I think that I am speaking for most hon. Members when I say that the soft option has not been put. It has been hard work to get the fishing industry to come to terms with the problems of conservation and the amount of fish being taken out of the sea. What worries me is that we are told that we must accept the scientific advice, the reduction of quotas and TACs, but the problem is that that does not seem to be working. Each year, we find reduction after reduction. I

am not suggesting that reductions should not be made, and they probably will have to be accepted, but there seems to be less concentration on the scientific reasons for the lowering of the age of the stocks, and we need to know more about that aspect.
It is a bit much for the Minister to pray in aid scientific evidence in some regards, but then to acquiesce in respect of restrictions such as spending 10 consecutive days in port or on mesh sizes, when there is no scientific evidence for such measures. Nothing has been produced to show that 10 consecutive days of tie-up will work. It could be extremely dangerous to tackle the problem in that way. I am not persuaded that it is a good idea, and do not even understand how it would work. Would those 10 consecutive days run from the first of the month to the 10th of the month, or could people choose which 10 consecutive days they were? Will there have to be a 20-day gap between tie-up periods? That has not been explained, and we need to know.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. and old Friend for allowing me to intervene. May we have confirmation that those 10 consecutive days will include Saturdays and Sundays, and that they will not be 10 consecutive working days at sea, including steaming days? Will the period in fact comprise six working days plus four weekend days?

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps I should have asked my hon. Friend earlier whether weekends are included, and if there is to be some flexibility. I might have been given the right answer. We have not received an explanation from the Government.
If scientific evidence is to be used for one argument, it should be used for the other. There is overwhelming scientific evidence against using a 120 mm mesh, and to show that the fishermen's proposals can work. The Minister must put all the scientific evidence to the Commission.
I abhor cheating, as does every honest fisherman, I hope that there will be no division in the House, with people getting too touchy over allegations about Peterhead, Humberside or Cornwall fishermen. Such allegations should be done away with for ever. Fishing communities share tragedy, but when it comes to arguments about who does this or that, blame is always placed on fishermen who are 100, 200 or 300 miles away. We must stamp out cheating, and if we discover that our own constituents have been guilty of it, we must come down on them equally hard and not seek to defend them.
The Minister must address the decommissioning issue, for it is not good enough for him to say, because his Department made a mess of the previous scheme, that it was taken to the cleaners or ripped off, or whatever other phrase he chooses—and that as a consequence, there must never be another decommissioning scheme. Instead, we should learn from the lessons of the past.
One of the complaints that I received was that under the previous scheme fishermen did not receive a ha'penny. The Minister claims that the money goes back into the industry, but I do not think that that is true. It will probably go into the bankers' pockets, where it has always gone. It is problematical who will really benefit if the scheme is not properly worked out. However, if catching capacity is reduced in a strategic and planned way, that will help quota management. It must be done in that way.
Fishermen do not like regulations or planning, but they are beginning to accept that they are necessary because otherwise their livelihoods will disappear. They like even less the threat of fleet restructuring and decommissioning, with boats going out of the fishing effort in a war of attrition and bankruptcy. When he was Chancellor, the Prime Minister said, "If it ain't hurting, it ain't working." I hope to goodness that people realise that that is not the way to treat the fishing industry. We want proper restructuring and proper assessment. I also hope that, although tonight we are primarily discussing TACs, the problems facing the processors on the land will not be forgotten.
My final plea is for a day when we can discuss the industry properly, free from the pressures of time and without having to argue about TAC.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Despite the robust comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, all the evidence available to me suggests that, for the south-west, the current fishing year has not been as good as 1989. Furthermore, if the Commission's proposals for TACs and quotas for 1991 were implemented in their existing form, there is no doubt that the south-west fishery would experience real problems, with adverse repercussions for the regional economy as well as for fishermen and ancillary activities.
The problem does not end there, however. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, in a closely knit community there is an interrelationship between fishing and other economic activities. In the far south-west, there is an interplay between tourism and fishing. One of the reasons why people go on holiday to isolated peripheral parts of the United Kingdom such as Looe, Polperro and Fowey in my constituency is the fact that the harbours are alive. There is the movement of boats, the landing of fish, the auctioning and the mending of the nets, all of which are of great interest to the visitor. If fishing were taken away, those harbours would cease to be alive.
I recognise the fundamental problems that face United Kingdom Ministers. As we all realise, fish stocks are declining; we have a surplus catching capacity, and we have to deal with overfishing in some areas. As a consequence, we must exercise restraint if we are to maintain effective conservation measures and safeguard the viability of our fishing industry.
I have three detailed points to make about the effect that the draft proposals would have, if implemented, on Devon and Cornwall. The first relates to the TACs, and United Kingdom quotas in particular, for cod, whiting, plaice and sole. The sole quota in area Vile would be reduced by 44 per cent., and the plaice quota by 18 per cent. Although the figures do not seem high in terms of tonnages, I assure the Ministers that in financial terms they represent significant reductions in value, and thus in fishermen's incomes. The suggested reductions in the whiting and cod quotas are 29 per cent. and 19 per cent. respectively.
I acknowledge that those figures are provisional; there will be negotiation at the Fisheries Council next week and there will be some room for manoeuvre in the context of

quota swaps, particularly with the Dutch. Overall, however, the trend will be unfavourable if major modifications are not obtained.
That brings me to my second point—the basis of the scientific assessments for the determination of TACs. These are based on limited analytical data that are susceptible to error and variable interpretation. I hope that where there is a variation in the scientific evidence, Ministers will argue for the higher parameter.
In this debate last year I argued in support of greater flexibility in the application of quotas. Circumstances change during the course of any single fishing year. I believe that if there is ample scientific evidence and local knowledge to support an enhanced quota during the year, there should be a procedure that can be implemented without, in effect, having to renegotiate the TACs and quotas.
In the context of conservation, I wish to mention mesh types and sizes. Many hon. Members have already referred to that. South-west fishermen have long advocated larger mesh sizes. The present situation is ludicrous as many small fish are caught and, subsequently, dumped. Small fish represent not only future fish stocks and the viability of the industry but the future livelihood of our fishermen.
It would be remiss of me not to remind hon. Members and Ministers of the potential threat of competition from over 100 Spanish quota-hopping fishing vessels should the decision of the European Court go against the United Kingdom. That is a real worry to our local fishermen since the fish-catching capacity would be enhanced out of all proportion to the quantity of fish available in the south-west fishery. Such a development would have serious consequences for the south-west fishing industry.
Looe is the principal fishing port in my constituency. It supports over 50 fishing vessels—a significant increase since 1980. In the past three years alone over £1 million has been invested in landing facilities, including a fish market and a packaging scheme. Larger sums have been invested in our fishing fleet. I want that momentum to be maintained. We look to our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to safeguard those interests in Brussels next week and in the wider European forum.

Mr. James Wallace: Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, may I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, extend, through the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), our condolences to the families of those bereaved in the fishing tragedy yesterday? As many hon. Members have said, those of us who represent fishing constituencies know that the communities are brought together when tragedies such as this happen. I know that that will be the case in the fishing communities in my constituency. Today, we also remember the community in Carradale where my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has been with those who are burying their dead after the tragedy last month.
This has been a vigorous debate, as it should be in the week before Ministers go to Brussels to negotiate what will effectively be the shape and structure of the fishing industry in 1991. I share the view of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) who expressed disappointment at the fact that because we were not going to line up neatly behind the Minister, he would automatically be offended and go on to a political attack. If some points


seem to be uniting the Opposition and some of his hon. Friends—the eloquent and knowledgeable right. hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) shares some of the views expressed by Opposition Members—perhaps the Minister should take time to consider what we are saying. As representatives of constituencies with substantial fishing interests, we try to make it part of our business to find out what the fishermen are thinking and what their concerns are. The Minister should he in no doubt that the message that we are receiving from them is that they are not satisfied with the way in which things have been going or with some of the more controversial proposals on the table for discussion in Brussels next week.
I shall try, as briefly as possible, to go through the points that arise from the total allowable catches. The first is the agreement that was initialled last week with Norway. Every year, the precise status of that agreement is raised. Every year, Norway tries to get more western mackerel, which appears to be conceded by the Commission, but not necessarily be member states. By the time that Ministers consider it at the Council of Ministers, it is virtually a fait accompli, and on that basis they must share out the remaining stocks.
The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside made the important point that the scientific advice for North sea mackerel is that the catch should be nil. This year, the amount agreed for western mackerel is higher than the scientists' recommendation. The scientific advice has been ignored for political reasons. That should be borne in mind when Ministers use the phrase, "We must abide by the scientific advice", as a defence for other TACs.
The one saving factor, as the Minister said, is the flexibility to take some of that western mackerel east of the 4 deg. west line. My understanding is that the Community and Norway have agreed to 60,000 tonnes being taken. Last year, although it was agreed with Norway, the Council of Ministers scaled it down. Does the Minister foresee that happening again? The pelagic fishermen in my constituency hope that as 60,000 tonnes has been agreed with Norway the Community will agree to it.
On North sea cod and haddock TACs, I noted that the Minister said that, if necessary—it would appear necessary from the figures before us —the Government would invoke the Hague preference. If it is necessary to do so, they will have our support. Will it be possible to agree a TAC for North sea cod that makes it unnecessary to invoke the Hague preference? The industry feels that that would be a better way of proceeding.
If my figures for east and west catches are right, there will be an 8 per cent. reduction in the quota for saithe. I am advised that the Norwegian effort in the fishing of saithe has been considerably reduced, and the possibility of our taking up the slack that the Norwegians have allowed us would be welcome, particularly to the industry in England.
For the west coast, the Minister said that the Government would probably have to invoke the Hague preference for whiting and saithe. What is the position of the Hague preference with regard to haddock? In 1990, the west coast haddock TAC was 14,000 tonnes in area. VIa and 10,000 tonnnes in area VIb, making a total of 24,000 tonnes, but now the total for the two areas is down to 13,000 tonnes. In other words, 11,000 tonnes has been knocked off a TAC of 24,000 tonnes, which is a substantial amount. Given such variations, not least reductions,

fishermen find it difficult to believe the scientific advice and wonder why it can be at one level in one year but so dramatically different the next.
The debate on mesh sizes has flowed backwards and forwards. As the Minister well knows, the industry's preference is an 80 mm square mesh panel with a 90 mm diamond mesh. The industry was pleased that the 120 mm mesh size seemed to be well and truly ruled out; there was a broad range of opinion against that. We heard something which, until this evening, the industry had not heard directly from the Government: the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to say that it is unlikely that the British Government will be able to stand by a negotiating position of the 80 mm square panel and 90 mm diamond net. That must come as a great disappointment to the industry. It may feel that the Government have not been batting as hard on this wicket as they might have reasonably been expected to. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) put it well. Because the Government have been so reluctant to go down any road towards a structured policy introducing decommissioning, the Commission has to get back at British industry in some other way, so we have no friends when we want to put forward a proposal.
By using videos and going on journeys, representatives of the industry have tried to show that this is a sensible conservation measure. I understand that it is easy in negotiations to compromise on size issues. But we are talking not just about size but about selectivity. Skippers such as Charlie Dawson, the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, and John Garrioch from my constituency have shown that their method is more effective in reducing discards. Hon. Members agree that that, perhaps more than anything else, must be achieved. It also retains more marketable fish. The Minister should not give up on that position. He appears already, before the negotiations, to have conceded. What has he been doing since last month to win round friends from other member states? Have representatives of other nations seen the videos and the evidence which our fishermen produced? There will be great disappointment if the pass is sold before Ministers reach Brussels.
The proposal that fishermen should stay 10 consecutive days a month ashore is one of the main controversial issues of the debate. I asked the Minister what the Governmenl's position was, but his reply was not particularly clear. If I used the wrong terminology, I apologise, although I was not aware that I did. I was referring to part of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Moray and her hon. Friends with which the Minister was dealing at the time. The amendment criticised
unworkable proposals on the limitation of effort proposed by the EC Commission.
That is what I thought the measure was. The Minister asked why an amendment to that effect should have to be tabled and said that he agreed. I asked him whether he opposed the idea of 10 consecutive days ashore, but did not receive a direct reply. The Minister owes it to the industry to say what the position will be. Is he in favour of the Commission proposal or not? I should willingly give way to him, but he does not seem to want to make the position clear. As hon. Members said, we are increasingly putting pressure on fishermen to fish when they would much rather stay ashore. This may not be the most sensitive of occasions on which to dwell on that point at length, but the House knows the issue.
What thought has been given to the consequences for processors? Will the Government rely on the industry sorting itself out in some way to provide a steady flow of fish during the month, or will there be a glut in some parts of the month and a shortage in others, affecting the price received by those who land the fish?
Not surprisingly, the subject of decommissioning has played a large part in the debate. Many people in the industry have told me and, no doubt, other hon. Members that they see the common fisheries policy as a whole. There are technical conservation measures in one part—a means of limiting the number of fish caught and efforts aimed at conservation. There is also a structures policy. The Government seem to adhere, no doubt rightly, to part of the policy but they totally ignore others. The United Kingdom's fishing industry has to suffer for their omissions.
The Minister argued against decommissioning and told us repeatedly that the previous decommissioning scheme was roundly criticised by the Public Accounts Committee. I understand his sensitivity because he was then one of the junior Ministers responsible for devising the scheme. As the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), a member of the Public Accounts Committee, said, it did not rule out other effective decommissioning schemes.
We then heard the argument that a decommissioning scheme would not be effective and that we could not target it. Other European countries manage to target it. In Europe, age, horse power and tonnage are relevant factors. The younger the vessel, the bigger the horse power and the bigger the capacity, the greater is the amount received for decommissioning. The Government have been so intransigent about decommissioning that they have never entered discussions with the industry to see whether there can be effective targeting of decommissioning. I urge them to rethink their position.
We heard a novel point this evening. The Minister said that if we took some capacity out, other vessels would tend to fish harder, so no net benefit would acrue. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside dealt with that point exceptionally well. We are talking about —

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates 1990–91 (Class IV, Vote 2).

CLASS IV, VOTE 2

Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £14,304,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of Estimates, &amp;c.).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1990–91

Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £4,746,691,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for defence and civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 6 and 76 of Session 1990–91.

ESTIMATES 1991–92 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £63,981,165,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1992 as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of Session 1990–91.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr.Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. John Maples and Mr. David Lightbown.

Mr. Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1991 and 1992: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14].

Fisheries

Question again proposed.

Mr. Wallace: I will continue after that commercial break, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, it does not follow that if one takes some boats out of the fleet, other boats would automatically make up the difference. As the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said, no one is proposing a decommissioning scheme while abandoning all other means of conservation. We are striving for better management of the relatively smaller stocks that are available. That might mean that some vessels, boat owners and crews will be able to sustain a better livelihood after decommissioning than is the case at present. There is no doubt that, at present, too much capacity is chasing fewer and fewer stocks.
It seems that bankruptcy is the Government's only instrument for trying to reduce the capacity of the fleet. Aggregation, to which my fishermen do not object, does not appear to have made a great impact on the problem. The Government should be in no doubt that, for those of us who represent fishing constituencies, bankruptcy is not an acceptable instrument of policy.
The Minister said, rightly, that we want a policy that will ensure that there are fish to be caught in the seas not only next year, but for many years to come. However, it is also important to ensure that there are still fishing communities and fishermen who are able to go out to sea to seek those stocks.

Mr. Frank Doran: May I add my condolences to those hon. Members who represent constituencies that have lost fishermen in the past few weeks? It shows the high price that is paid by our fishing communities.
At one time, my constituency was a strong fishing community and experienced similar losses, but its main importance now is as a fish market and as the centre for Scotland's fish processing trade. It is one of the United Kingdom's leading fish processing centres. It is important to consider the consequences of the decisions that are being discussed in terms of the fish processing industry because those consequences are not limited to the catches only. Fish processors deserve our attention.
First, however, I should like to follow the point that was made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and to refer to the Minister's attitude to the debate. I was a wee bit disappointed that he did not follow the precedent that he set last year in his first year at the Dispatch Box on this matter. Before that debate, he called all hon Members who represent fishing constituencies to a private meeting at which he explained the Government's position on various aspects of the debate. We had a worthwhile and useful discussion beforehand. That helped to bring people together, which I believe is what the Minister intended. Today, however, he is taking a much more confrontational line, which is a matter of some regret, certainly to Opposition Members.
At the beginning of this year, 5,200 people in the north-east of Scotland worked in the fish processing

industry. During the past year, we have lost 750 jobs and 14 firms have closed. We are now down to 4,500 employees.
Obviously, the fish processing industry depends on the fish catchers providing the supplies. I must express my extreme concern about the way in which the 10-days-permonth compulsory lay-off will affect the fish processors. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also referred to this point. I am not clear about whether the compulsory lay-off is to be across the board, whether there is to be no fishing on particular days or whether the restriction will be applied to individual ports. A daily intake of fish is absolutely necessary not only to my consituents who work in the fish processing industry, but to the consumer. It is crucial that that point is addressed and that we know exactly where we are.
It is worth considering what the fish processing industry —certainly in my constituency—has had to cope with in the past few years. I got some figures today which show that, in 1988, fish processors in the United Kingdom had access to 50,000 boxes of fish per week. In 1989, with the reduction in the quota, that had reduced to 22,000 boxes per week and had reduced again last year to 14,000 boxes. We are looking at further cuts this year.
The industry has been encouraged to change dramatically. In 1992, we are expecting new food hygiene and food handling regulations, which will be imposed on a Europewide basis. A lot of work is being done by the industry—I know, because I meet the fish processors in my constituency—to ensure that it can comply with the regulations in 1992. However, when the processors are faced with a reduction in their basic raw material, it is difficult for them to make the planned investment that is necessary if they are to meet and to cope with the regulations and, at the same time, continue to provide the high quality of fish that the consumer is entitled to expect.
Fish processors have another problem. All sorts of rumours are circulating about how the regulations will be imposed. I spoke today to Scottish fish merchants and processors; it is clear that they are uncertain about the requirements that will be imposed upon them. It has been suggested that there may be a phasing-in period in some areas. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State for Scotland could clarify that matter, because we need to know whether the new food hygiene regulations —I know that they are not before the House—are to be imposed with immediate effect on 1 January 1993, or whether there will be a phasing-in period so that people such as my constituents can prepare and adjust much more slowly.
The best processors—those who take the most businesslike attitude and those who care most about their product —are planning their investment now for 1 January 1993. They are worried that they will be left behind. Those who are slower to invest and those who wait to see how the regulations will affect them will steal quite a march on those who care and take the trouble to make that investment.
The fish processing industry faces serious problems and we do not want Government indecision on them on top of that. I would appreciate it if the Minister would clarify the point about investment. Investment in the fish processing industry is a crucial question which must be addressed.
We heard a great deal from the Minister tonight about the extra revenue which fish catchers have enjoyed this year. Of course, when there is much less fish on the market, the price goes up. That has its consequences on the fish


processors. Prices at the quayside in the north-east of Scotland have increased by some 33 per cent. this year. That is 33 per cent. extra money which the fish processors have to find. Their cash flow is much more restricted than that in most other industries, but the retail price for fish once it is processed has increased by only 14 per cent., so fish processors are living within much tighter margins and are suffering seriously.
I am aware that the Scottish fish processors—the merchants—approached the Minister with a plea for assistance in adapting to the imposition of the new food hygiene regulations. The industry wants to improve and modernise and to have facilities which are as up to date, clean and hygienic as possible, but in these times it is difficult for them to make the adjustment. They applied for assistance and went to see the Minister, but they were rebuffed. The attitude taken was the same as that taken by the Minister today on decommissioning.
Some fundamental questions need to be asked about the Government's attitude. Fish is a food. It is a healthy food and one which people want to buy. People are encouraged to consume it. We should do everything possible to encourage fish consumption, yet it strikes me that exactly the opposite is happening. The price of fish in the supermarkets has increased dramatically. It is now almost as expensive as the best steak. I find that difficult to reconcile with the attitude of the Government when they wear another hat. Through the Department of Health and the Home and Health Department in Scotland, they encourage healthy eating. Poorer families certainly cannot afford to buy fish fresh from the fishmongers or the supermarket. That has happened simply because of the Government's lack of planning and their failure to make proper arrangements to ensure that the market is supported in exactly the same way as the food industry.
Fishermen like to contrast their position with that of the farmers, and they are right. Farmers are encouraged and subsidised to produce, because their product is seen as absolutely essential to the well-being of the nation. We cannot afford to go into too much deficit in food production. I cannot understand why fishermen are not treated in the same way.
We have surpluses in beef, milk and grain. I cannot understand why farmers are given the benefit of buy-in and set-aside schemes to encourage the removal of large acreages from production when fishermen do not benefit from such schemes. In the same way, we have argued tonight that vessels should be removed from fish catching. The analogies are too good to Miss for the fishermen, and I sympathise with them. I do not understand why the Minister refuses to acknowledge the points made by not only Opposition but Conservative Members. They are genuine points, which reflect the genuine anxieties of our constituents.
It does the Minister no credit to hark back to previous bad experiences. If the Government got it wrong in the past, surely they can learn from their experiences and work a little harder to get it right now. It is clear that the industry needs the Government's support, as does the country if it is to enjoy access to fish as a staple part of its diet.
When fish processors and catchers talk to me about decommissioning and financial support, they point out

that they now operate in a wholly regulated market. There is no free market except for the price of the product and for the financial assistance which is denied to them. There is licensing of boats, there are quotas and now they face the imposition of severe food and hygiene regulations. The fishermen, fish catchers and processors are given no compensation for that totally regulated market. That cannot go on for ever.
That position is not determined by the availability of fish in the North sea. We are talking about international obligations, not just our national interests. That needs to be addressed before the Minister or the Secretary of State must cope with a real crisis in our fishing industry, when consumers are complaining, not about the price of fish, but about the fact that it is not available.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on an excellent speech. He is well liked in my constituency among the growing number of fishermen who form part of the developing fishing community. They follow his words with great care. Although I cannot always give the answers, they ask me what the Labour Government will do for fisheries. I feel sure that my hon. Friend will be the Minister.
I wish to deal with the Commission's proposals for total allowable catches in block Vila, which mainly services constituency ports on the coast of Cumbria. I am thinking of Maryport, Workington and Whitchaven, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Those fishing ports face a TAC reduction for cod of 60 per cent., for whiting of 55 per cent., for plaice of 35 per cent. and for sole of 13 per cent.
The position is aggravated for cod by the Hague preference, whereby regionally dependent communities are given an advantage for reasons which I cannot understand. I should like the Minister to justify that system. I cannot see how Ireland can possibly lay claim to such a concession when conditions there are no worse and no better than those in my constituency. I do not see why Ireland should have the benefit of the preference at a cost to fishermen who work in my ports.

Mr. Salmond: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for his ports, but we should remember that it was through the intervention work of Garret FitzGerald that we have the Hague preference. It is an excellent principle in the common fisheries policy which emphasises communities which are particularly dependent on fishing. That is a good principle in a fisheries policy, and it was an Irish Foreign Minister who was instumental in achieving it in 1976.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That was 14 years ago, and communities which were wholly dependent on fishing are perhaps as different today as are constituencies which depended on the steel industry, as the hon. Gentleman will know is the case in Scotland.
The ports of west Cumberland probably employ about 200 people in the industry and several dozen people in the processing industry. The general view is that, if the TACs are applied, they may wipe out part of the west Cumberland fishing industry. That would be resented, particularly as, over the years, my constituent fishermen


have repeatedly made protests to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about conservation policies.
In the past few years, I have sent a number of letters to the Ministry that have identified the need for conservation schemes as proposed by fishermen in my constituency. Requests were also made for a decommissioning scheme to be introduced.
Fishermen in my constituency have volutarily changed from using 70 mm nets to 80 mm nets. However, the TAC quotas are based upon scientific assessments which include a calculation based upon 70 mm nets. Therefore, my fishermen strongly believe that the TACs have been set on the basis of inaccurate information. They believe that the matter should be reviewed in the light of equipment used in my area and in other parts of the United Kingdom. My fishermen would not oppose an increase in the mesh size, but obviously they would oppose a 120 mm net.They have, however, voluntarily changed the size of their nets, and they object to the way in which the Commission has produced its figures.
I have made repeated representations to various Ministers about a decommissioning scheme. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and I was present at those hearings when it dealt with the scheme which has been attacked tonight but which Ministers believe to be the basis upon which they can reject further schemes. The PAC report did not preclude, or include, any reference to the fact that decommissioning schemes were useless and could not be introduced. The Committee accepted that decommissioning schemes could work if that was the will of Government. Then, however, the will of Government was not to make that scheme work, and now they are unwilling to try again.
I believe that a decommissioning scheme could work. To put it bluntly. if we were to scrap boats that were more than 15 years old, it would wipe out a proportion of the British fishing fleet. Why do Ministers not deal with it on that basis? Why do they not consider the criteria that they have submitted tonight? If the reason for Government reticence is money, they should return to the PAC to examine some of the reports that we have produced on waste of public moneys.
The other day, the PAC identified a loss of about £100 million in the bus privatisation. Next Monday, we shall consider a loss of £6 billion due to miscalculation of SERPS. Over the years, the PAC has produced many reports about loss of public money as a result of policies being improperly implemented by civil servants or because the proper policy was not pursued. The money is there; it is just a question of how to allocate it properly.
A decommissioning scheme may be a harsh instrument, but the Government should pursue it. They should not impose damaging cuts on incomes in constituencies such as my own, particularly in the light of what happened earlier this year. My constituents received no additional money from the Government despite inclement weather, and many faced bankruptcy as a result. When the fuel price increases hit boat owners, they were left in a difficult position.
The Government should go for a decommissioning scheme, and they should do so with sufficient will and energy. They should not stand aside to leave it to the market, as is suggested in the proposals before us.

Mr. Calum MacDonald: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that the arrangements now in force on the Clyde between fishing boats and submarines should be extended to all fishing areas. I know that the Minister suggested that it might be valuable to have a trial period, but I believe that that trial period could be usefully extended to all fishing areas. It is an urgent matter that should be considered by the Government.
The 10-day lay-up recommendation has been criticised as being potentially dangerous because it would encourage or compel fishermen to fish on days when, because of the weather, it would be inappropriate. The lay-up idea is not new. The 92-day option was the most popular with fishermen, no doubt because it would be easy to evade. That raises a second problem with the 10-day rule, for not only would it be dangerous but it would be almost impossible to enforce.
If all fishing boats were required to be tied up for 10 days a month, the scheme would become untenable. How could the entire fishing fleet be tied up for 10 days when different weather conditions prevail along different coastlines? Some would be happy to tie up while others would be unhappy because they would be Missing 10 good fishing days. In other words, it would be unfair to impose such a uniform 10-day rule on the fishing industry.
Alternatively, if fishing boats were allowed to choose their own 10 days in the month, the scheme could not be policed. It would be easy for people to write in their logs the 10 days in question, and then not necessarily keep to them. Either way, the 10-day rule would be difficult to enforce and police.
When we express doubts about the 10-day rule, the silence of the Government is indicative of their possible acceptance of the rule. That is odd, given that the west coast fishing industry has been proposing to the Government for some months a weekend ban on fishing activity. The Government have not responded in any way to that suggestion, even though they appear to be playing about with the notion of a 10-day ban. I press them urgently to consider the suggestion of the west coast fishing industry for a weekend ban on fishing activity, Unlike a 10-day ban, it would be easy to enforce. It would be easy to identify any boat that was out at the weekend. It would be better for processors because, instead of being idle for a huge chunk of the month, they would be able easily to respond to a consistent weekend hiatus in the supply of fish. They would be able to adjust to that more easily than to a 10-day ban.
If the Government adopted the west coast suggestion for a weekend ban, they would have an additional card to play in the negotiations. They could say, "We have already begun to incorporate certain ideas," and thereby be better able to resist pressure from other Ministers, especially in regard to the laying up of boats.
The Minister still uses the word "efficiency" in terms of fishing boats, and talks of the need to keep the most efficient fishing boats in the industry. I pointed out in the previous fisheries debate that efficiency is not a positive word when applied to fishing. In every other industry efficiency means lower prices at the end of the day for the consumer. In the fishing industry, uniquely, efficiency means higher prices for the consumer. Large boats


vacuuming up fish from the sea mean in the long run fewer fish and hence higher prices for the consumer. That is exactly what is happening now.
Rather than scrutinising efficiency in this rather unthinking way, Ministers should look at the effects of

policies that they might want to introduce on fishing communities, especially on the west coast of Scotland. That area more than any other has scarce resources, and it would be criminal to embark on a policy that would throw away one of the few natural advantages enjoyed by communities in that area and hand it over to fishermen from other areas.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I begin with a few words about the loss of the Premier and its crew. Fishermen face all sorts of hazards, physical and man made. We need to hold a debate soon on the safety of fishing vessels. I have long argued that United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels should carry immersion suits, and enough of them for all crew members, as they are required to do in France.
My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was right to emphasise the fragility of some of the fishing communities on the west coast of Scotland, particularly in his constituency. Some of them face a real threat from the advanced vessels from the north-east of Scotland. The technology that we possess for catching fish far outstrips the viability of the stocks. Somehow we must match the technology to the stocks of fish.
I asked earlier about the Greenland fishery quota. I now declare an interest: my brother Leslie is at this moment fishing for cod off the west coast of Greenland, along with 31 comrades on his stern freezer trawler. That is why I was able to tell the Minister with confidence that one of the reasons why the quota was not taken up was that the weather on both Greenland coasts has been dismal and there has been a lot of ice in the area.
Fishing off the east coast of Greenland—I have been there only once: never again—is much more dangerous than fishing off the west coast. Ministers may have thought that I was being facetious when I argued that only experienced fishermen should fish in those highly dangerous waters. I was not, although I accepted the Minister's point: how otherwise could fishermen gain experience of those inhospitable waters? Skippers and mates who seek to fish them should first travel as passengers with highly experienced crews. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that we never want to see again the loss of one of our big stern trawlers, such as occurred in 1972 with the loss of the Gaul. In that disaster, 32 men were lost. My brother was a member of the crew, but fortunately, his holiday coincided with that ill-fated voyage.
As we have seen in the past 24 hours, fishing anywhere in the north Atlantic is dangerous. The further north the fishermen go, the more dangerous it becomes, especially in the presence of ice. I do not know why the Secretary of State for Scotland is laughing, because this is a serious matter. I am sorry that he does not appreciate that.
I welcome the continuation of fishing in Greenland waters by our small fleet of distant-water trawlers. I also welcome what might be a slight increase in the United Kingdom's share of cod in the Norwegian exclusive zone. That will benefit our fishermen. What is the view of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about what they may see as the small quotas for Norwegian and Faroese waters that are to be given to the former German Democratic Republic?
I do not want to see fishermen there put ashore for ever, but the new Germany, which is part of the European Community, has a huge national fleet. Many of the aging vessels from east German ports should be tied up. I should not want to cross the Clyde in one of them, let alone fish from them in the north Atlantic. Is the door now open for the renewed Germany to be given bigger quotas in some areas? That important question must be addressed.
I am being fair-minded, and I am pleased to see that the Clyde Fishermen's Association will be able to catch another 300 tonnes of Clyde herring. That is a good measure. I share the concern expressed by some hon. Members about the ban on fishing for 10 consecutive days. I said that in an intervention and perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm that the 10 consecutive days will include Saturdays and Sundays and that, in effect, we are talking about the loss of six days' fishing.

Mr. Curry: indicated assent.

Dr. Godman: The Minister nods, thereby clearing up one ambiguity.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) spoke about what I call the Spanish problem. Members of the Select Committee on European Legislation will know that the president of the European Court of Justice delivered an interim judgment on, I think, section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. If that judgment is carried out in a substantive sense by the European Court of Justice, it will have profound implications not only for our constitution and for this place—whatever power this place has—but for our fishermen, particularly in the south-west of England. That is worrying. That decision may be 18 months away, but it is deeply disturbing.
I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Harley), who I think has responsibility for fishing, agriculture and many other things, because I want to say a word about the Northern Ireland fleet. I think that he has been present throughout. I welcome him to his new ministerial post. He and I were on a parliamentary delegation recently and I thoroughly enjoyed his company. But we may part company on fishing matters.
The Northern Ireland fleet, which is important to the Province because of the employment multiplier ratio, and so on, is an aging fleet. I think that I am right in saying that more than 50 per cent. of the fleet is aged 20 years or more. That is getting on, for fishing boats. It is essential that the Minister should argue his corner with his ministerial colleagues as well as in Brussels. When talking about grants and the regeneration of our fleet in the Western Isles, Cornwall and elsewhere, we must not lose sight of the needs of the fishermen of Ulster.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The fleet may be aging, but it was bought second-hand and it has been growing in the past few years.

Dr. Godman: I readily acknowledge that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman in turn will readily acknowledge that replacing it is a major problem there, just as it is in the Western Isles and elsewhere.
With regard to the multi-annual guidance programme, can the Secretary of State for Scotland estimate what will be the percentage reduction in the United Kingdom's fishing fleet if we meet our obligations under that programme? Will it be about 25 per cent. between now and the end of 1991, or will it be even more than that? I see that the Secretary of State is getting advice, which I am sure will be good advice. Will the Secretary of State look at that formula and tell us roughly how many fishing vessels would be involved? Is it between 300 and 600 vessels? 'The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I should like to see his answer in the Official Report.
In a nutshell, and oversimplifying like mad, too many fishermen are chasing too few fish. The United Kingdom-registered fishing fleet is far too big in terms of the stocks that that fleet harbours, hence the multi-annual guidance programme obligations. Its size must be reduced, and it is a question of how that is to be done. I have argued for some years that it should be achieved by what was called by a distinguished civil servant in the fisheries section of the Scottish Office—Mr. Boyd-Gordon, who retired a couple of years ago—a maritime set-aside. In other words, a decommissioning scheme. It should be possible to introduce one similar to that of the Danes, which reduced their fleet by a sizeable number.
Other hon. Members mentioned the experience of the previous decommissioning scheme, and there is no doubt that the Hull trawler owners took that scheme, the Government and the present Minister to the cleaners. For example, the owner of the trawler Pict received in the 1960s a grant in the region of £1 million from the White Fish Authority to build that vessel. Just before the disastrous decommissioning scheme was introduced, that owner was negotiating the sale of the Pict. Under the scheme, he received a sum in excess of £500,000, and then sold the vessel for about £600,000.
The Public Accounts Committee rightly censured the creators and administrators of that scheme. I know fishermen who worked for the owner of that vessel and for others for years, but who received under £500 in redundancy money—which was less than the decommissioning payment of around £415 per gross registered tonne. That is why the right hon. Gentleman and his officials are unwilling to introduce another scheme.
We should be able to devise a fair scheme. If the Government produced one, we would scrutinise it in a rigorous and critical way—although the Minister does not like criticism, as he showed tonight. The right hon. Gentleman started off being extremely polite, but ended by shouting and bawling at the temporary members of the Scottish National party. There was no need for that. We seek only to protect the interests of our fishermen.
With the support of right hon. and hon. Members, it ought to be possible to devise a scheme that would enable middle-aged fishermen to tie up once and for all their middle-aged vessels, without facing destitution. That should be our aim, and we should unite in that endeavour. There are too many vessels and too few fish to be caught by them, and the size of our fleet must be reduced.
A major decommissioning scheme could be devised that would allow for a reduction in the size of our fleet while at the same time allowing its aging sectors to be renewed—to allow young men to enter the catching sector with the conviction that they could earn a decent living in that most hazardous of occupations.
The Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland are wrong when they argue that there can be no decommissioning scheme. The alternative, if we are to protect our fishing stocks and to maintain their viability, is that fishermen will have to tie up and be reduced to a state of penury. I would willingly support Ministers if they came forward with a decent and reasonable decommissioning scheme for our fishermen.

Mr. Brian Wilson: First, let me associate myself with the condolences that have been extended, through the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), to her constituents who are in mourning tonight.
This has been a good and a knowledgeable debate. It has been made clear—particularly in the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)—that Labour's approach is not to recriminate in advance of the outcome, but to advance practical objections to the proposals in the hope of contributing constructively to the hand that the Ministers will play next week. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asked us to help him in his battle, and we want to do that because, whatever the longer-term prospects, the livelihoods of many fishermen throughout Britain—and the wider communities which must rely on the industry—depend on the outcome.
I believe—as, I think, do many other hon. Members who have spoken, and who come from diverse parts of the United Kingdom—that it is fundamentally inaccurate to talk about the Scottish, the English or the Northern Irish fishing industry. Those generic terms cover a series of small industries with very different and sometimes conflicting interests. As we advance into the age of quotas, restrictions and regulations, my thinking becomes conditioned by the danger that, if all the regulations favour the strong against the weak, we shall end up not with healthy communities and the "living harbours" described by the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), but with, perhaps, a more efficient fleet without a socially balanced fishing community.
That applies to Scotland, England and, indeed, Europe as a whole. I have mentioned the conflict between the interests of, for instance, the east and the west; we should also recognise the problems of the south-west, where Spanish fishing boats are seen as a threat. We do not deny the existence of conservation problems, or scorn scientific evidence because we do not like its conclusions; that would be a foolish attitude for any party to adopt. Only short-term thinkers chase votes in the fishing communities by suggesting that there are painless solutions to the current problems.
As has been clear from every speech that we have heard tonight, two issues must be the subject of considerable effort and resistance in the Council next week; the question of white fish minimum net sizes, and the proposed requirement for vessels to abstain from fishing for 10 consecutive days per month in 1991. I have spoken to several people on the west coast tonight; the area has a first-class conservation record, and poses absolutely no threat to global stocks. One of those peple told me that, if the compromise of 100 mm mesh were accepted, it would be a disaster for his local fishing industry. He is not trying to dodge conservation responsibilities; he knows the problems that would be created.
Fishermen's organisations throughout Britain are committed to the 90 mm diamond-shaped mesh size, with the incorporation into the net of a panel of 80 mm square mesh above the cod end. That would reduce the number of discards, and would be a sensible step forward. The Minister should also bear in mind the fact that the change in gear would not only bring conservation benefits, but could be implemented cheaply by fishermen in the areas that I have mentioned. One of the problems of opting for


a more dramatic change in mesh size is that many fishermen would have to entirely change their gear at a substantial cost.
A specific point was made to me and perhaps the Minister will deal with it tonight or write to me. It was suggested that, under the common agricultural policy, French fishermen have a right to have by-catch restrictions waived if they use selective trawls and that that is an incentive to adapt to conservation-minded gear. That seems a sensible proposition and I should be grateful if the Minister could advise me whether it would be open to British fishermen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was right to say that cuts in catching effort that are based on quotas and restrictions will almost certainly lead to abuse and will appear unnatural to fishermen. By far the best way to approach the matter is with the emphasis on improvement and sophistication in gear and a more conservation-minded approach.
On the 10-day ban, the arguments are those of common sense and practicality. If fishermen know that there is a lay-off coming up, they have an incentive to fish harder in the preceding weeks. There is a long history of conservation measures that provide an answer on paper but prove to be worse than useless in practice. This is one such proposal, and it should not be agreed to. would increase the relative disadvantage to areas that have smaller boats and a much less capital-intensive fishing infrastructure.
As I understand it—I am not trying to be smart, and I would be happy for the Minister to write to me about it —the proposal is that a vessel that has achieved 40 per cent. of its total catch by the end of June would come within the framework of the 10-day ban. It seems extraordinary that it does not matter whether it is 40 per cent. of 200 boxes or 40 per cent. of 2,000 boxes. Nobody can make a comparison in terms of the effect on stocks between those two vessels, but the vessel that has caught, on these figures, 80 boxes will be subjected to the same ban as the vessel that has caught 800 boxes. That cannot be right. It disproportionately disadvantages the smaller, more conservation-minded vessels and the weaker fishing communities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out, fishermen on the west coast have repeatedly called for a weekend ban. They saw this coming and put forward a more sensible approach. The Government should back them and strongly resist what is seen as a foolish proposal.
The misreporting or non-reporting of catches is a problem in many parts of the country. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred to it as cheating. It is cheating not against the Government or some abstract body but against other fishermen and fishing communities. If vessels go from east to west or north to south or vice versa and claim that fish came from there when they did not, they are taking away the right of fishermen in those areas to catch the fish in that year and are distorting the quotas that those fishermen will be eligible to catch in subsequent years.
I was told a story tonight—I will not go into detail —about a find at a west coast port last week. Under the surface of what was apparently a catch of coley there were 60 boxes of cod. The point made to me was that, if that is going on frequently and many boats are not reporting their catches, what in heaven's name has that done to the

scientific projections on the west coast which have led, in the coming year, to a cut in the quota for west coast fishermen?
I said earlier that I wished that representatives of every political party would condemn that practice. The elegant way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) did so, without recrimination or sectional divide, was a model. I am sorry that it was not followed; I am particularly sorry that it was not followed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
The quota for monkfish and megrim is of particular concern on the west coast. It is believed that the precautionary TACs could be increased substantially, which would be a major compensation for fishermen who are losing out in other ways.
I conclude—these things must be rushed through at this hour—on the issue of decommissioning. The Minister says that it is not the way to reduce pressure on fish stocks. I understand his concern. We know that the previous decommissioning scheme was a fiasco and that it was mismanaged—that has been admitted—and we further know that the pressure stock licensing scheme was a fiasco. I remember that from long before I was a Member, when I wrote about it extensively. Everybody knew that it would be a fiasco. It was wide open to abuse, and it was clear that licences would move from parts of the country that were weak to parts that were already strong. Until that was stopped relatively recently, it is precisely what happened.
Tonight, as in previous fishery debates, not one Conservative Member has defended the Government's refusal to have any sort of decommissioning scheme. A decommissioning scheme is in progress. It is based on hardship and disillusionment among fishermen arid is taking out the wrong people and vessels. It is not touching the excessive catching power of some areas of the country. It is the wrong kind of decommissioning scheme and it is hurtful to many fishing communities.
I do not underestimate the difficulties that the Government face in implementing a decommissioning scheme. I sympathise with much of what the Minister said about those difficulties, but it is not adequate to say that there are difficulties and that there have been failures in the past in order to deny the possibility of doing it better in the future.
As the Minister goes to Europe, we do not wish to divide the House. This matter is for the British Government alone, but within Europe they alone are holding out against it.
I have been asked by hon. Members who have not spoken to seek an assurance from the Minister about transponders being fitted to gear, bearing in mind everything that has happened in the past two weeks, and about who is to pay for that. We would welcome an early assurance that the cost of transponders, or pingers, will be met by the Ministry of Defence.
Yes, we wish the Minister well as he goes to Europe. We understand the complexity of the issues in which he is involved. We have defined the issues on which we believe he must fight extremely hard, and we know that many fishermen and fishing communities will be waiting eagerly and anxiously for the outcome of the discussions.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I begin by adding, through the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), my expression of most sincere condolences to the bereaved families and friends of the crew of the fishing vessel Premier, which so tragically foundered recently. Anyone who has had contact with a small fishing community knows the intensity of grief that is experienced in such tragedies. When the bodies cannot be recovered, as so often is the case, the grief is extended and prolonged. I shall pass the hon. Lady's comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I can tell her that the marine accident investigation branch of the Department of Transport will conduct an inquiry into the loss. It will consider what steps are necessary to allow it to carry out its investigation properly. I shall bring her suggestions to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that it would be appropriate if, on behalf of my constituents, I thanked all right hon. and hon. Members who have so rightly expressed their sympathy to them. Sometimes it may seem that words are easy to say, but I know the sincerity with which they were expressed. I shall relay those comments to my constituents over the weekend when I visit the families.
As the marine investigation group is in contact with Duchies of Lossiemouth, which is releasing as much information as it can about the Premier, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that details about any plans to raise the vessel are immediately given to that office or to me, because the relatives are deeply concerned? I know that the Secretary of State, a similar incident having occurred in his constituency, appreciates the sensitivities of this matter.

Mr. Lang: I certainly acknowledge that lack of information adds to the pain of the situation. I am sure that the hon. Lady's comments will be noted by those who read the debate. On the same broad subject, I assure the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence will take note of their points about the experiment in the Clyde involving submarines and fishing vessels.
This wide-ranging debate has embraced fishing interests throughout the United Kingdom. Many right hon. and hon. Members have contributed. Unfortunately, some have not been able to remain for the end of the debate, and I understand the reasons for that. One or two hon. Members have failed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker —particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), who has shown sustained support for fishing interests in East Anglia for a long time.
The national interest in fishing is reflected in the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food opened the debate; I, with my Scottish responsibilities, have the opportunity to wind it up; the Minister with responsibilities for agriculture and fisheries in Northern Ireland —my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—has been present throughout the debate and has listened carefully to it; and my hon. Friend who takes a special interest in fisheries matters at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), has been present throughout the debate and contributed to it.
It has been a United Kingdom debate, reflecting the crucial importance of the fishing industry to many parts of the United Kingdom. The concern that exists on most sides of the House, although it is not so apparent on all, is that we should achieve long-term prosperity in that industry. Those who last year forecast desolation in the industry in 1990 have been proved wrong, as prices have increased to offset the reduction in fish landings. It is essential not to view these matters in the short term; we have to look to the future sustenance of the industry, to its long-term viability, and avoid the easy, short-term palliatives which are sometimes offered.
A number of themes came through in the debate. There was particular interest in technical conservation matters. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) suggested that there was no support for fishermen. If one reflects on the size of the fishing industry and sets against that the colossal Government effort in enforcement, research and administration, one cannot but admit that the Government rightly give enormous attention to the problems of the fishing industry. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the improvements in technical conservation and the reduction in discards which is sought by the various measures under consideration.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is not present now, that our scientists are negative about the square mesh. Because our scientists had already done work on cod ends and extension pieces, made entirely of square mesh, the industry was aware of the problems of nets made entirely of square mesh. Thoughts turned to panels, which have been experimented with throughout the year.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that there has been a delay. Within six weeks of receiving the Commission's proposals for using 120 mm square mesh net, scientists in the Department had already started the important trials which showed how unrealistic the Commission's proposals were. The House will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon describe the proposal for 120 mm as "dead in the water".
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) suggested that 90 mm with 80 mm square mesh panels would be the answer. It is true that that net combination would assist the discard of whiting and haddock, but it would do nothing for cod, and we have to deal with a mixed fishery. We need a measure that gives a balance between the species caught.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lang: No, because I sense that the House is anxious to move to a conclusion.

Mr. Salmond: On that point —

Mr. Lang: No, I want to cover other points on the issue in responding to other hon. Members.
The important point to emphasise is that technical conservation measures have an important contribution to make in helping to solve the problems. For over a year, we have been pressing for European Community measures to make fishing gear more selective. Square mesh panels and netting can give useful conservation benefits. The debate at


the Fisheries Council next week will be about how far we should go in improving selectivity to protect small fish. It is vital that the Community reaches a compromise solution because if the talks fail, everybody loses.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) raised the question of the cuts in plaice and sole in area VII. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are very much aware of the importance of plaice and sole stocks in that area. We will work to increase the TACs proposed where it is within the possibilities of science. We will also try to secure as many advantageous quota swaps as possible.
My hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) raised the question of quota hoppers, which one can understand because they represent constituencies in the south-west. I know that the matter worries them and that they are in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives recently had a meeting with my right hon. Friend, and I know that he will be aware of the great concern and close attention that is being given to the issue in the Ministry.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised the question of North sea saithe from Norway. It is true that the saithe TAC has increased by 4 per cent. and that Norway has retained more than its industry requires. However, the EC would need to find an additional 11,550 tonnes of cod equivalent and probably 14,500 tonnes of herring to buy it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about the EC-Norway agreement on fish stocks forming a central role in the determination of North sea TACs and quotas. The key element in the agreement is the treatment of the western mackerel stock. The migratory pattern of the stock has changed in recent years and has resulted in a greater proportion of the fish being found in Norwegian waters. That is the underlying reason why the TACs are being negotiated in that way.
The central issue in effort limitation was the 10-day rule. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested that, under the Commission's proposals on limitation, boats would be required to fish for 10 consecutive days. He said that boats might, therefore, fish in unacceptable weather. The hon. Member did not get it quite right. The Commission's proposal is that boats fishing predominantly for cod and haddock should desist from fishing for 10 consecutive days of the month. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and others got that right.
That seems another sensible measure which is worth considering in the context of the need to conserve stocks. We accept the need to limit fishing effort to protect fish stocks. The proposal provides a starting point for discussion and refinement at the Fisheries Council. It is right that it should be further considered.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang: No. I am about to go on to decommissioning.
It is well known that many hon. Members oppose the Government's view on decommissioning. However, they have not answered the point put by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He said

that we have to achieve a method that will work and give value for money. It would be possible for a large sum to he spent on the decommissioning scheme without reducing the catch by a single tonne. Some 30 per cent. of tonnage could come out without reducing the catch. Would a decommissioning scheme give good value for money? Our experience of a decommissioning scheme was extremely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Did not my right hon. Friend listen to what I said on the decommissioning scheme? I endeavoured to deal precisely with my right hon. Friend's argument. Did he also not listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee? The Committee did not attack the concept of decommissioning; it attacked the way in which the decommissioning scheme worked for the Humberside fleet. It suggested that there were other ways in which a decommissioning scheme could be carried out cost-effectively.

Mr. Lang: I quite understand my right hon. Friend's point, which he has made for some time. The point is that the decommissioning scheme as proposed does not take the catching capacity out of the fleet, and it has not been found to be satisfactory on that ground.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised the matter of the sea fisheries committees for Scotland. This issue has been looked at in the past when the view was taken that the current management system best reflects the circumstances in Scotland. There has been no pressure from the Scottish industry for such changes. That is one area in which I cannot follow English colleagues.
The fishing industry is immensely important in Scotland, where some two thirds of the landings by value and some three quarters of the landings by volume take place. Eight of the top 10 ports in the United Kingdom by value of landings are in Scotland. All that would be put at risk if we followed the policies of the Scottish National party as set out in the amendment. It calls on the Government to "display some commitment", but the SNP is the party which, if it achieves its attempt to gain independence for Scotland, would destroy the common fisheries policy, which brings those great advantages to Scotland. The SNP talks about a "vital resource industry", but it is the party that would destroy the resources by pandering to the needs of today and neglecting the needs of tomorrow.
Scottish National party Members cannot have it all ways. They cannot have a policy in their own party of membership of the Community, but reject the procedures by which decisions are taken in the Community. They cannot claim that the fishing industry faces problems, which it undoubtedly does, but reject the means for dealing with those problems. They cannot care about the future of the fishing industry and propose irresponsible policies that would destroy it.
The policies of the Scottish National party pose an enormous threat to the Scottish fishing industry. An independent Scotland would have just three votes in the Fisheries Council instead of the 10 votes that it has at present. I urge the House to reject the SNP amendment.
This has been an extremely useful debate ahead of the Fisheries Council. I assure all hon. Members that the constructive points that have been made—for the most


part—will be considered carefully ahead of the negotiations. The TACs and quotas for 1991 are but the first step in the management of the fisheries next year. We shall continue to pursue our policy of sensible management measures in consultation with the industry, and always with the aim of securing long-term prosperity.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken once.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Salmond (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take it after the Division.

The House having divided: Ayes 22, Noes 76.

Division No. 29]
 [11.16 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bellotti, David
Morley, Elliot


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Doran, Frank
Salmond, Alex


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Skinner, Dennis


Foulkes, George
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wallace, James


Haynes, Frank
Wilson, Brian


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.




NOES


Amess, David
Harris, David


Amos, Alan
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Arbuthnot, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Atkinson, David
Hunter, Andrew


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Irvine, Michael.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jack, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Janman, Tim


Bowis, John
Kilfedder, James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carrington, Matthew
Lang, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Lightbown, David


Chope, Christopher
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maude, Hon Francis


Cope, Rt Hon John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Curry, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mitchell, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Dover, Den
Neubert, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Norris, Steve


Fishburn, John Dudley
Patnick, Irvine


Forth, Eric
Porter, David (Waveney)


Goodlad, Alastair
Portillo, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Raffan, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Redwood, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hague, William
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Smith, Tim (Beaconstield)


Hanley, Jeremy
Stern, Michael





Stevens, Lewis
Wheeler, Sir John


Summerson, Hugo
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Tim Boswell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 11th December 1990 relating to Total Allowable Catches and Quotas for 1991, the proposals described in its un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 11th December 1990 and its Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 12th December 1990 relating to the reciprocal fisheries Agreement between the Community and Norway for 1991, European Community Document No. 9898/90 on guide prices for fishery products for 1991, and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1991 consistent with the requirement for conservation of fishing stocks.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of the incredible speed of delivery of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I was unable to hear whether he was going to the Fisheries Council meeting, whether he was aware that the Government were meant to agree with the 80 mm sq mesh and whether he called the proposal for 10 consecutive days of no fishing a sensible measure. I do not know whether the House could hear. As he is present, perhaps he will clarify those matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member is attempting to prolong the debate.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 17th December, unless proceedings in Committee of the whole House on new Clauses in respect of the Criminal Justice Bill relating to capital punishment have previously been disposed of, the Chairman shall at Ten o'clock put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a second time, the Question on any Amendment to such a new Clause which has been selected by him and which may then be moved and, thereafter, the Question that the Clause, or the Clause as amended, be added to the Bill);
(c) any Question necessary to dispose of any other new Clauses and Amendments thereto, which have been selected by him and which may then be moved.—[Mr. Sackville.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 19th December, Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall have effect as if the words 'eight o'clock' were substituted for the words 'nine o'clock' in line 15.—[Mr. Sackville]

PETITION

Southern Africa

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I have a petition to present from Niall Fraser and Steven Dunn, who are students of Montrose academy. It is supported by 570 other students at that academy and citizens of the burgh of Montrose and district.
The petition demonstrates support for Oxfam's work in fostering economic and social development in southern Africa. The petition states that major obstacles to such developments include apartheid in South Africa, conflict in the region, mounting debts owed by African Governments to northern Governments and banks, as well as the insufficiency of appropriate aid and the failure of Governments to help the poorest in the region:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the British Government to encourage international efforts to tackle these obstacles and support the work of OXFAM to end poverty and suffering in front line Africa.

To lie upon the Table.

Medical Research

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]

Mr. David Tredinnick: I must record how grateful I am to Mr. Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to raise the general topic of Department of Health funding of medical research, and the specific needs of some vital research projects in Leicestershire.
First, however, it is important to comment upon the change in the level of public funding for medical research through the main channel of the Medical Research Council. It is a great credit to the Government that the funds available for medical research have dramatically increased since they came to power in 1979. The Library has provided me with the relevant statistics, from which it is clear that that funding has increased by 47 per cent. In 1981–82, funding increased by a record 28 per cent. and by a further 11 per cent. in 1989–90.
The funding for heart disease research has been similarly significant. In 1985–86, the level of funding stood at £4·6 million, but in 1989–90 it increased to £5·5 million. In addition, in 1989–90, about £2·5 million of such research was directly funded by the Department of Health. Tonight I hope to be able to persuade my hon. Friend to part with just a little more money.
The United Kingdom has one of the worst records for heart disease, so research is essential and crucial. Recently, my constituents began to lobby me to work for more funds for research into heart problems, and drew my attention 1.o work at Groby road hospital, Leicester, into mechanical heart valve noises. An observer might reasonably ask about the significance of such noises, and the short answer is that they can establish whether a valve is faulty. Unfortunately, that is a critical issue today, because, in the early 1980s, a number of faulty valves were fitted.
It has been established that faulty valves have been responsible for at least 250 deaths worldwide. In Britain, 5,000 patients were fitted with those devices. They were withdrawn, however, in the mid-1980s, and although the failure risk of those valves—it is important to stress this —is one in 13,000 as against one in 25,000 for all heart valves, it is enough to cause concern. I have a letter from a constituent who possesses two of those faulty valves. I have received other letters and representations from constituents and others in Leicestershire.
Apart from the problem of strut failure in the valves, there is the second, related, problem of the clotting of the valve. Research currently under way at Groby road hospital in Leicester, it is suggested, can establish whether a valve is faulty. That research is concerned with a new way of using valve sounds to detect defects, and it was to appeal for funds to allow that research to continue that I originally requested this debate. The issue has been of sufficient concern for the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) to form a national heart valves action group with the intention of banning hear valves that are not approved by the Government.
The technique for assessing a faulty valve can be explained simply. If one hits an empty cup with a spoon, a characteristic noise is heard. If a blob of Blue-tak or some other substance is affixed to the cup and the cup is then struck like a bell, the noise will be noticeably different. A similar effect occurs when clots form on mechanical


prosthetic heart valves, and that provides the only means available for the detection of clots. The technique is studying emissions that occur outside the audio spectrum and cannot be heard using a stethoscope.
If a clot is detected early, it can be dissolved. If not, it will eventually interfere with the valve operation, and emergency surgery will be necessary, with a consequent high mortality and high cost. There must be a trade-off here in that, if the art can be perfected, the costs of long-term and expensive surgery must be reduced.
I said that my intention was to ask for additional support for one Leicestershire research project. But having spent time researching for this debate, I feel that I must draw the attention of the House to others in Leicestershire. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are aware that the demand for medical resources far outstrips our ability to provide them. Despite the record increase in funding during our tenure of office, there must be additional ways of raising money. In that connection, I draw attention to Medisearch, which has been established in Leicestershire as a registered charity and which supports medical research at the university of Leicester medical school and teaching hospitals in the county, the royal infirmary, Leicester general hospital and Groby road and Glenfield hospitals.
In the past, Medisearch has helped research into cot deaths, high blood pressure, strokes and heart disease, high risk pregnancies, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, eye problems of the elderly, kidney transplants and diseases in newborn children. Funds are now urgently needed for research into breast cancer, heart disease, childhood asthma, failing eyesight in the elderly, cystic fibrosis, infertility and brain damage in infants.
Medisearch's task is to help bridge the gap between the public funding and educational funding of medical research. It is more applied than pure research. In other words, it must be of relevance both to the teaching and application sides in the county hospitals. Priorities at present are for breast cancer research, and of course the cross-fertilisation of research ideas from one project to another is considered important in preventing unnecessary duplication and overlap.
Medisearch was established many years ago in Leicester to develop the desires of Leicestershire people and local industry to provide such support. Recently, to expand its work to meet the increasing requirements and rewards of research, the trustees have appointed a full-time fund-raising director. He has made tremendous strides in seeking out money with a range of activities which hon. Members would be pleased to claim as part of their fund-raising activities, and I pay tribute to him.
Apart from the research at Groby road to which I have referred, there are other examples of research projects in the county which currently need funding and which illustrates the effective use of applied medical research in Leicestershire. There is, for instance, the extra-corporeal membrane oxygeneration project—ECMO. The equipment permits the treatment of cardiorespiratory failure when other measures have failed or are not appropriate, such as the breathing of meconium at birth. If a baby is put on an ordinary ventilator, it will usually die. ECMO will

keep a baby alive until the lungs recover, and there have been several striking successes, but the treatment costs £5,000 a case.
Then there is the detection of respiratory problems in infants, especially those less than a year old. Research is needed for viral infections and for babies at risk of cot death. A respiratory function laboratory is being developed in Leicester royal infirmary, but £250,000-worth of equipment is needed to monitor breathing, heart rate and oxygenation.
Thirdly, there is asthma. Asthma is more prevalent in pre-school children, we know, but we need to research its origins and the environmental factors that contribute to this frightening condition. Monitoring equipment is needed for hospitals and for children who are followed up at home.
Fourthly, I must mention islet cells from the pancreas. Work on transplanting pancreatic islet cells is advanced in Leicestershire, which is used to treating diabetics. If it works, the new treatment would remove the need for lifetime insulin injections. The condition affects about one in 600 British children. After experimental work, trials are now needed on humans to determine appropriate locations for transplant and the methodology of injections.
Fifthly, I refer to implantable defibrillators. It is now possible to implant computerised pacemakers that detect irregular ventricles or heartbeats and restore normal heart rhythm, but the treatment costs more than £10,000 per case, and we need trials to find out how effective they are.
I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to discuss Department of Health funding for medical research. I have brought to the Minister's attention the worries of heart valve patients in my constituency. People concerned about their own condition are visiting the House tonight. I have highlighted some of the important research in Leicestershire and I have drawn to my hon. Friend's attention Medisearch, which bridges the public and private sectors; and I have referred to five other examples of excellent research in Leicestershire. I commend them to my hon. Friend and hope that he will look on them favourably.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on raising a subject of considerable importance to anyone interested in the future of health care in Britain. The national health service's provision of health care is and will always remain critically dependent on research —to develop new treatments, to discover new drugs and to furnish a better understanding of how the body works, thereby enabling doctors to treat conditions and diseases that previous generations regarded as disabling and beyond the power of physicians.
One of the most exciting aspects of medical science is the fact that clinicians will never be content to admit defeat in the face of conditions or diseases. They always want —rightly—to find new ways of treating them and of helping the patients. Medical research, funded by the Department of Health, or by the Department of Education and Science, or by the private sector, has a vital role to


play in improving health care for patients of the NHS and ensuring that the frontiers of medical science are for ever being extended.
Any analysis, however, superficial, of the history of medical science in Britain could not fail to be impressed by the pace and extent of advance —over quite a short period —in the quality of care in our hospitals. That is the result of the investment of time and money in medical research.
The subject chosen by my hon. Friend is of considerable importance to everyone interested in the future of health care in Britain. The scale of research and the progress made in expanding the commitment to research in recent years are remarkable. The figures for research in England made the case for me. My hon. Friend reasonably sought to concentrate on Department of Health research funding, but it would be wrong to look at that in isolation arid not examine the total research effort that is devoted to advancing medical science and improving the quality of health care available to patients.
By far the biggest investment in health research is not in the public sector but in the private sector. It is estimated that our pharmaceutical industry invests £793 million a year in medical research. I stress that such research is important to the national health service, and it is considerably to the credit of the pharmaceutical industry that its research effort, although essential to the industry's survival, makes a major contribution to the national effort to find new ways to treat disease and improve the condition off patients.
My constituency is close to that of my hon. Friend, and he will know that it is the location of two major drug companies, both of which are greatly committed to research. One of them employs many of my constituents in medical research. Perhaps some of my hon. Friend's constituents also work in Fisons. It would be quite wrong to overlook that part of our total medical research effort.
In the independent sector, substantial research is funded by voluntary contributions to research charities. Medisearch is one such charity, about which my hon. Friend spoke. In addition, there is funding through the university councils, as part of the core activity of our universities. There is funding through the Medical Research Council, which is part of the research council effort, and both of those are in the budget of the Department of Education and Science. The Department of Health has a national research budget, and local research is organised within the national health service. Other agencies are also funded by the Department of Health.
In 1989–90, the latest year for which I have complete figures, the total expenditure on health research in England, quite apart from the other countries of the United Kingdom, was almost 1·4 billion. The expenditure on medical research is the equivalent of almost 1p on income tax. That is a substantial investment and commitment to medical research in the public and private sectors.
I have sought to stress the importance of setting the Medical Research Council in context, but it is often picked out as the bellwether of the Government's contribution and commitment. Since 1979, the resources available to the council have risen by more than 26 per cent. in real terms. No one can doubt the commitment to and the scale of medical research in Britain.
The importance of medical research was stressed in a report published in 1988 by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled "Priorities

in Medical Research". That report suggested that we should establish a national health research authority in order to try to ensure that some of the officially directed research programmes would have greater unity of purpose and priority.
In response to that report, the Government published a White Paper in December 1989 also entitled "Priorities in Medical Research" in which we announced that we did not intend to proceed with the proposal for a national health research authority, but that we intended instead to appoint a chief of research and development as a member of the national health service management executive who would be responsible for, among other things, ensuring that the opportunities that existed for national health service management to act as a catalyst for research were taken in order to introduce a properly prioritised approach to health research. Professor Michael Peckham will be taking up those duties in January 1991.
Not only are we committing the resources, but we are looking all the time to ensure that we get value for money for public sector resources and that we take every opportunity to ensure that our commitment to medical research is carried through in a real and effective way.
My hon. Friend was anxious to look not only at the national scene —it is important to be clear about the national perspective on medical research—but at what was going on in Leicestershire, a county which both he and I have the honour to represent. He mentioned a number of schemes, and I want to comment on some of them.
First, my hon. Friend mentioned the research going on in Leicestershire into ways to monitor and improve mechanical heart valves. I hope that the final report of the research carried out at Groby road hospital will provide information on what further possible studies might be justified. If the acoustic assessment technique to which my hon. Friend referred proved capable of detecting early clot formation on mechanical heart valves, I understand that equipment already on the market could be modified by the manufacturer to provide a machine for that purpose for the NHS.
It has been suggested that the acoustic assessment technique might also be capable of early diagnosis of the mechanical failure of those heart valves. If proposals by an established research organisation were made to the Department to pursue that line of research, they would receive consideration alongside all the other claims and proposals in the competition for research resources within the Department.
The Department treats seriously the safety of artificial heart valves. We are kept fully informed of matters relating to failure and we are in close touch with manufacturers and relevant regulatory authorities abroad. Since 1985, when the Shiley valve was withdrawn from the United Kingdom market, I am pleased to say that there have been no reports of mechanical heart valve failure in Britain. None the less, that is an important issue in Leicestershire, and I have constituents who are committed to the continuation of those programmes.
My hon. Friend spoke also about proposals for research in the county on the detection of respiratory problems in infants under one year old and the related subject—to a layman, at least—of asthma. I take a personal interest in both, because my own two-and-a-halfyear-old daughter has the misfortune to be a mild asthma sufferer, so I have seen at first hand the problems that that


condition can cause. If there is an opportunity to undertake research into ameliorating those related problems, no one will be better pleased than me.
My hon. Friend asked about the possibilities of research into extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation—a technique in which blood is oxygenated outside the body. In effect, it amounts to an artificial lung. Conventionally, that technology is used in open heart surgery, while the lungs and heart are being operated upon, and it is referred to as cardio-pulmonary bypass. A pioneering study was undertaken in the United Kingdom by cardio-thoracic surgeons in Leicester to investigate the treatment of newborn babies with damaged lungs—due, for example, to inhalation of poisonous fluid.
That technique involves the use of specially developed apparatus that minimises the trauma to the blood by the artificial lung, so that it can be used for much longer periods—allowing the damaged lung to heal. If that can be made to work, it will offer an exciting opportunity. It is yet another illustration of the type of research to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks and which, if followed through, can lead to developments in medical technology and treatment that will in future break barriers, and cure conditions that previous generations found impossible to manage.
All the proposals from within the county to which my hon. Friend referred are a tribute to the inventiveness and ideas of Leicestershire people that test the frontiers of medical knowledge. As a Leicestershire Member of Parliament myself, and as someone interested in the promotion of medical research, I am obviously open to all such ideas. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that, as

ever, all proposals must expect to participate in the competition for resources that is a necessary element in the priority process in any budgeting context.

Mr. Tredinnick: Nevertheless, will my hon. Friend confirm that he will look carefully at the proposals that come before him, even if they may on occasions be a little controversial?

Mr. Dorrell: Of course I will examine with care the proposals that come before me, and I shall try to disregard the extent to which they are controversial. To the extent that I am asked to make any decisions on the allocation of research resources, it seems important that I should assess them on their merits and not on the nature of the campaigns that are engendered either for or against them.
I may add—it would be absurd were it otherwise—that the allocation of resources to specific research programmes is not something in which a politician is qualified to intervene. In the whole of our research programme—not just in medical research—we operate a system whereby the politicians allocate the resources, but leave the choice between the competing claims of different groups of scientists to people who are more likely to make informed judgments about their relative merits.
As my hon. Friend knows, I am by background a business man, not a scientist. I would not claim to be able to make a properly informed decision about the different competing claims to which my hon. Friend refers. However, I can commit the Government to maintaining a medical research programme that will allow for choices to be made by people better qualified than me, to ensure that opportunities for continuing to push forward the boundaries of medical science continue to be taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve midnight.